315 nuclear bombs and ongoing suffering: the shameful history of nuclear testing in Australia and the Pacific
|
315 nuclear bombs and ongoing suffering: the shameful history of nuclear testing in Australia and the Pacific, https://theconversation.com/315-nuclear-bombs-and-ongoing-suffering-the-shameful-history-of-nuclear-testing-in-australia-and-the-pacific-148909, Tilman Ruff, Associate Professor, Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Dimity Hawkins, PhD Candidate, Swinburne University of Technology
November 3, 2020 The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons received its 50th ratification on October 24, and will therefore come into force in January 2021. A historic development, this new international law will ban the possession, development, testing, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.Unfortunately the nuclear powers — the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea — haven’t signed on to the treaty. As such, they are not immediately obliged to help victims and remediate contaminated environments, but others party to the treaty do have these obligations. The shifting norms around this will hopefully put ongoing pressure on nuclear testing countries to open records and to cooperate with accountability measures. For the people of the Pacific region, particularly those who bore the brunt of nuclear weapons testing during the 20th century, it will bring a new opportunity for their voices to be heard on the long-term costs of nuclear violence. The treaty is the first to enshrine enduring commitments to addressing their needs. From 1946, around 315 nuclear tests were carried out in the Pacific by the US, Britain and France. These nations’ largest ever nuclear tests took place on colonised lands and oceans, from Australia to the Marshall Islands, Kiribati to French Polynesia.
The impacts of these tests are still being felt today. All nuclear tests cause harm Studies of nuclear test workers and exposed nearby communities around the world consistently show adverse health effects, especially increased risks of cancer. The total number of global cancer deaths as a result of atmospheric nuclear test explosions has been estimated at between 2 million and 2.4 million, even though these studies used radiation risk estimates that are now dated and likely underestimated the risk. The number of additional non-fatal cancer cases caused by test explosions is similar. As confirmed in a large recent study of nuclear industry workers in France, the UK and US, the numbers of radiation-related deaths due to other diseases, such as heart attacks and strokes, is also likely to be similar. Britain conducted 12 nuclear test explosions in Australia between 1952 and 1957, and hundreds of minor trials of radioactive and toxic materials for bomb development up to 1963. These caused untold health problems for local Aboriginal people who were at the highest risk of radiation. Many of them were not properly evacuated, and some were not informed at all. We may never know the full impact of these explosions because in many cases, as the Royal Commission report on British Nuclear Tests in Australia found in 1985: “the resources allocated for Aboriginal welfare and safety were ludicrous, amounting to nothing more than a token gesture”. But we can listen to the survivors.
His daughter, Karina Lester, is an ambassador for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in Australia, and continues to be driven by her family’s experience. She writes: For decades now my family have campaigned and spoken up against the harms of nuclear weapons because of their firsthand experience of the British nuclear tests […] Many Aboriginal people suffered from the British nuclear tests that took place in the 1950s and 1960s and many are still suffering from the impacts today. More than 16,000 Australian workers were also exposed. A key government-funded study belatedly followed these veterans over an 18-year period from 1982. Despite the difficulties of conducting a study decades later with incomplete data, it found they had 23% higher rates of cancer and 18% more deaths from cancers than the general population. An additional health impact in Pacific island countries is the toxic disease “ciguatera”, caused by certain microscopic plankton at the base of the marine food chain, which thrive on damaged coral. Their toxins concentrate up the food chain, especially in fish, and cause illness and occasional deaths in people who eat them. In the Marshall Islands, Kiritimati and French Polynesia, outbreaks of the disease among locals have been associated with coral damage caused by nuclear test explosions and the extensive military and shipping infrastructure supporting them. Pacific survivors of nuclear testing haven’t been focused solely on addressing their own considerable needs for justice and care; they’ve been powerful advocates that no one should suffer as they have ever again, and have worked tirelessly for the eradication of nuclear weapons. It’s no surprise independent Pacific island nations are strong supporters of the new treaty, accounting for ten of the first 50 ratifications. Negligence and little accountabilitySome nations that have undertaken nuclear tests have provided some care and compensation for their nuclear test workers; only the US has made some provisions for people exposed, though only for mainland US residents downwind of the Nevada Test Site. No testing nation has extended any such arrangement beyond its own shores to the colonised and minority peoples it put in harm’s way. Nor has any testing nation made fully publicly available its records of the history, conduct and effects of its nuclear tests on exposed populations and the environment. These nations have also been negligent by quickly abandoning former test sites. There has been inadequate clean-up and little or none of the long-term environmental monitoring needed to detect radioactive leakage from underground test sites into groundwater, soil and air. One example among many is the Runit concrete dome in the Marshall Islands, which holds nuclear waste from US testing in the 1940s and 50s. It’s increasingly inundated by rising sea levels, and is leaking radioactive material. The treaty provides a light in a dark time. It contains the only internationally agreed framework for all nations to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons. It’s our fervent hope the treaty will mark the increasingly urgent beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. It is our determined expectation that our country will step up. Australia has not yet ratified the treaty, but the bitter legacy of nuclear testing across our country and region should spur us to join this new global effort. |
|
Problems re the planned nuclear waste dump: Some tough questions for the Kimba Council
1. Based on overseas experience every place where some nuclear facility for waste storage and disposal has been established has seen a dramatic reduction in property values
2. Has the Kimba District Council considered this probable and economically debilitating situation
3. Is so how and what precautions have been taken by the Council to prevent it and what notification has it given to the community in that regard
4. If it has not been considered by the Council please explain why having regard to the duty of care that the Council owes to its community to ensure that they do not incur any financial loss
5. Has it ever been raised by the Council with the government and the responsible ministers and if so what responses has it received
6. Having now been given notice of this probable economic reversal what does the Council propose to do to prevent or at ameliorate the potential losses in property values for the Kimba community
7. Has or will the Council seek any financial assistance from the government towards the losses incurred by the community on their properties?
8. Has the Council sought any financial and legal advice with regard to this impending and major financial problem particularly as any economic advantages promoted by the government wold be only a pittance of the losses?
Labor aims to amend the Nuclear Waste Bill, removing Napandee as the stipulated dump site
Penny Wong office reply to Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle letter before the last Senate session 27 October 2020
From: “Wong, Penelope (Senator)” <Senator.Wong@aph.gov.au>Subject: RE: We plead with Labor Senators to vote NO to the undemocratic, unfair National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020
Date: 26 October 2020Dear Michele,
RE: NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROPOSALThank you for your correspondence on the proposal for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia and the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.Senator Wong is aware of different views in the community about this proposed facility.It is clear the Government’s proposal gives rise to issues surrounding Indigenous heritage, environmental concerns, public safety, as well as differing opinions on necessity of such a facility, all of which must be adequately resolved.Australians depend on nuclear technology for medicines used in the diagnosis of heart disease, skeletal injuries, as well as a range of cancers. Radioactive substances and wastes must be handled safely and with care.One effect of the Bill would be to amend the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 to set aside the existing site selection and approval process, and instead specify the site selected and enable the acquisition of additional land for the facility.On 11 June 2020, the Bill passed the House of Representatives. As you noted, Labor opposed the Bill in the House. As you are aware, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee completed an inquiry into the Bill, and now it is up to the Government to decide when this bill will be debated in the Senate. Senator Wong followed the progress of the committee inquiry, in which Labor senators actively participated. We are pleased to see that you quoted from Labor senator Jenny McAllister’s dissenting report in your correspondence.Senator Wong encouraged members of the South Australian community to engage with the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry in order to ensure committee members and parliamentarians more broadly are aware of community attitudes. Along with consultation that has taken place with stakeholders, as well as community views expressed to Labor parliamentarians in community meetings and through organised petitions and campaign emails, this informed Shadow Cabinet and Caucus as they finalised Labor’s position on the legislation.Labor has decided move an amendment to the legislation in the Senate that will remove the section of the Bill that nominates the site at Napandee, near Kimba, as the location of the national radioactive waste management facility, whilst maintaining the Community Fund established in the Bill for whatever community eventually hosts the site. Should our amendment be unsuccessful, we will oppose the Bill in the Senate.Labor’s proposed course of action does not prevent the Government from nominating the site under the existing legal process, something it could do today. However, retaining the existing process ensures this significant decision will be subject to judicial review so that the community can be assured the decision about where to locate the facility was reached as a result of a fair and properly conducted process. This is something we are aware that the representatives of the Barngarla People have expressed is particularly important to them.Ten years ago, Federal Labor deliberately amended the current legislation to include judicial review so that an affected party could challenge a decision made by the relevant minister. This is a contentious issue and should have the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.Thank you again for your correspondence.Yours sincerely,OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HONOURABLE PENNY WONG
South Australian Upper House reaffirms the State’s law opposing nuclear waste dump
Mark Parnell MLC , It was a great day back in 2016 when we won the campaign to stop the ill-conceived proposal to turn South Australia into the World’s dumping ground for deadly high-level radioactive waste. However, domestic nuclear waste and other radioactive subjects are still on the agenda of State Parliament.
Proposed Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump
Whilst the Federal Liberal Government seeks to push this unnecessary and divisive project through the Senate, the South Australian Upper House has reaffirmed its commitment to State law by opposing a domestic nuclear waste dump at Kimba or anywhere else in South Australia. Dangerous long-lived radioactive waste currently stored under guard at Lucas Heights should stay there until a permanent solution is found, not shipped 1700kms to another temporary storage site in SA. If this project proceeds, the Greens will ensure that a South Australian Parliamentary inquiry is held that properly consults all stakeholders, including the Barngarla Traditional Owners who were shamefully excluded from the original community ballot.
Banning Nuclear weapons
State Parliament has recognised the 75th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This horror has inspired 47 countries to ratify a 2017 UN Treaty that would ban nuclear weapons forever. Only 3 more nations are needed for the Treaty to become International Law. So far, Australia is refusing to sign, for fear for offending our US allies. You can add your voice here: https://icanw.org.au/
STOP PRESS: We’ve just learnt that the 50th nation has ratified the Treaty, which will now come into effect in 90 days.
Radiation Regulation
The State Government has re-written South Australia’s radiation protection laws. Whilst most changes were administrative, there are still some fundamental problems, not least of which is that BHP’s Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs continues to be exempt from most State laws. Both Liberal and Labor joined forces to ensure that BHP’s special treatment continues with their “Indenture” overriding laws that all other mining companies must comply with.
On a more positive note, a number of Green amendments to increase accountability and transparency were accepted. We also secured an amendment that allows South Australia to set its own safety standards for radiation exposure and not be limited to outdated and weak standards applied elsewhere.
Nuclear waste storage in Australia
Japan plans to dump a million tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific. But Australia has nuclear waste problems, too The Conversation,October 23, 2020 Tilman Ruff. Associate Professor, Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Margaret Beavis, Tutor Principles of Clinical Practice Melbourne Medical School .
|
Nuclear waste storage in Australia This is what happens at our national nuclear facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The vast majority of Australia’s nuclear waste is stored on-site in a dedicated facility, managed by those with the best expertise, and monitored 24/7 by the Australian Federal Police. But the Australian government plans to change this. It wants to transport and temporarily store nuclear waste at a facility at Kimba, in regional South Australia, for an indeterminate period. We believe the Kimba plan involves unnecessary multiple handling, and shifts the nuclear waste problem onto future generations. The proposed storage facilities in Kimba are less safe than disposal, and this plan is well below world’s best practice. The infrastructure, staff and expertise to manage and monitor radioactive materials in Lucas Heights were developed over decades, with all the resources and emergency services of Australia’s largest city. These capacities cannot be quickly or easily replicated in the remote rural location of Kimba. What’s more, transporting the waste raises the risk of theft and accident. And in recent months, the CEO of regulator ARPANSA told a senate inquiry there is capacity to store nuclear waste at Lucas Heights for several more decades. This means there’s ample time to properly plan final disposal of the waste. The legislation before the Senate will deny interested parties the right to judicial review. The plan also disregards unanimous opposition by Barngarla Traditional Owners. The Conversation contacted Resources Minister Keith Pitt who insisted the Kimba site will consolidate waste from more than 100 places into a “safe, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility”. He said a separate, permanent disposal facility will be established for intermediate level waste in a few decades’ time. Pitt said the government continues to seek involvement of Traditional Owners. He also said the Kimba community voted in favour of the plan. However, the voting process was criticised on a number of grounds, including that it excluded landowners living relatively close to the site, and entirely excluded Barngarla people. Kicking the can down the road Both Australia and Japan should look to nations such as Finland, which deals with nuclear waste more responsibly and has studied potential sites for decades. It plans to spend 3.5 billion euros (A$5.8 billion) on a deep geological disposal site.https://theconversation.com/japan-plans-to-dump-a-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-water-into-the-pacific-but-australia-has-nuclear-waste-problems-too-148337
|
|
|
South Australian Parliament rejected Kimba nuclear waste dump, but Morrison govt could still impose it
It sounds good that this Motion passed in SA Parliament Legislative Council – credit to Mark Parnell MLC & SA Greens.
Even though Mark Parnell’s motion in the South Australian Parliament was successful last week it may be an illusory outcome as it seems that the Commonwealth government will have the constitutional superiority to override state laws with regard to the nuclear waste facility at Kimba
This is because the Commonwealth will rely on the free trade provision under section 92 of the Constitution as to the transport interstate of the nuclear waste while its storage and disposal falls under the external affairs power of section 51(xxix) as the safe management and disposal of nuclear waste is regulated under international convention and treaty rights
Regrettably the High Court in recent years has based many of its decisions rejecting state legislation on a broad interpretation of the external affairs power which in some circumstances has lead to virtually nonsensical conclusions
For this reason it is still essential to prevent the government’s proposals being carried out by legislative action
Kimba residents have been sold a lemon – dubious financial gain from nuclear waste dump
Sandra Kanck Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch Australia, 22 Oct 20,Nuclear waste dump: Will the Australian government compensate Kimba landowners for fall in their property values?
If the federal government’s proposed nuclear waste facility were built at the chosen site at Kimba and as a result property values in the region decreased as has been the case in other places around the world in not dissimilar circumstances what will the federal government do for the those who have suffered a diminution in their property values because of the facility
Based on past experience I suspect nothing
However if the government has promised huge economic benefits for the Kimba region – and it has certainly done so consistently for the past five years in order to win community support – and these promises proved to be incorrect then would the residents and even general community members who have suffered a loss have a right of action against the federal government for what is tantamount to misleading and deceptive conduct in the normal legal context
On the face of it they would but unfortunately the government as a Crown instrumentality is exempt from any legal responsibility and liability in that regard
However the District Council of Kimba has been fully complicit in misleading or misinforming the community and should be liable for any damages incurred as a result of the Council’s actions and conduct
Unlike the government the Council will not be treated as an instrumentality of the Crown and will therefore be fully liable with the liability extending personally to the individual councillors since there could be no limitation on their personal liability like in a normal corporate situation
What I would suggest – but please ensure that I am not mentioned and it is recognised that I am not offering any legal advice – is for several ratepayers to formally approach the mayor and councillors asking them to obtain a proper legal opinion for open publication for the Kimba community addressing these issues and the possible outcomes
Any resistance on the part of the councillors in acceding to this request will only worsen their situation as it could be argued very strongly that this is necessary in order to ensure the continued stability and solvency of the District Council and protect the financial position of the ratepayers
You may need the help of a lawyer but the District Council should pay all expenses in investigating what has been suggested and in obtaining any legal and if necessary financial advice so that the ratepayers and other community members can be protected
Best of luck!
Keep South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000
Kimba’s potential water problem, if radioactive waste dump goes ahead
Paul Waldon Fight to Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia 12 Oct 20, Know Your Environment.Australian government’s controversial Nuclear Waste Bill delayed – not yet debated in Senate
10 Oct 20, The dump legislation didn’t make it on to the Senate floor for debate and voting … 
I think the government just ran out of time, they didn’t withdraw the Bill
So over the next week Non Government Organisations, and farmers and Traditional Owner s will be discussing how best to use the next month
Clean-up for Ranger uranium mine. Rum Jungle mine still a polluted mess
 It’s costing a fortune but the Ranger uranium mine is gradually being cleaned up, Canberra Times, Chris McLennan 6 Oct 20
Over the years many people questioned the decision to allow uranium to be mined inside one of Australia’s most famous and largest national parks – Kakadu. But in 1980 that’s exactly what happened, an open-cut mine surrounded by a park famed for its natural beauty made even more famous by the hugely popular Paul Hogan movie, Crocodile Dundee. Now the uranium is gone, dug out and sent off to nuclear power stations around the world and Australia’s longest continually operated uranium mine is almost done.
Nuclear power is making way for renewable energy. Uranium has been mined at Ranger for more than three decades, producing in excess of 130,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. The mine is being closed, Jabiru – the town built to service to the mine workers, is in the process of being handed over to Traditional Owners and the mining company is being closely watched as it delivers on its promise to clean up the site. Cleaning up uranium mines is not something the Northern Territory does well – there is still a huge environmental mess at Rum Jungle closer to Darwin.
That uranium mine is a legacy of the Cold War. Australia’s first large scale uranium mine was dug at Rum Jungle on behalf of our “Allies” in the UK and USA to fuel their nuclear weapon programs in the 1950s. Now water fills that vast open cut, a lake as locals call it, and another attempt is going to have to be made to cap the radioactive tailings left behind, the first attempt, supposed to last a century, failed after 20 years. Energy Resources Australia, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, says it has spent more than $642 million in the past eight years on rehabilitation of the mountains of tailings complicated by a lake created from a vast flooded pit………. This story It’s costing a fortune but the NT’s uranium mine is being cleaned up, gradually first appeared on Katherine Times. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6955634/its-costing-a-fortune-but-the-nts-uranium-mine-is-being-cleaned-up-gradually/?cs=14231 |
|
Labor likely to amend the Nuclear Waste Bill, removing certainty about the Napandee dump happening
 Labor’s position on nuclear waste bill means uncertainty remains over South Australian site, Guardian, Paul Karp @Paul_Karp 5 Oct 20, Labor will try to amend a government bill so that the federal resources minister has to nominate the site for a nuclear waste dump, despite concerns within the ALP caucus the change could pave the way for the decision to be challenged in court.On Monday, the Labor caucus agreed it would try to amend the bill by removing a schedule which states the dump should be located at Napandee some 20km north-west of Kimba in South Australia. The caucus resolved to oppose the bill if the change was not supported.
The caucus resolution follows a recommendation by the shadow science minister, Brendan O’Connor, and despite vigorous opposition from senators Alex Gallacher and Kim Carr. They argued that making the minister select the site could leave the decision vulnerable to challenge. The government’s bill, as it stands, nominates Napandee as the location for the dump and provides a compensation package – a formulation that prevents judicial review of the site selection…… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/05/labors-position-on-nuclear-waste-bill-means-uncertainty-remains-over-south-australian-site |
|
Nuclear waste dump – a Federal abuse of a small rural town
Regina McKenzie Fight To Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 6 Oct 20Federal government hiding its toxic nuclear waste Act under the cover of budget fuss
From A letter from Dr Margaret Beavis,1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
