The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) shows that the planned Kimba dump is predominantly for ANSTO’s wastes , NOT for medical wastes.
see new 2-page Briefer “ARWA’s National Inventory of Radioactive Waste shows the Kimba dump is predominantly for ANSTO’s waste” https://nuclear.foe.org.au/…/Inventory-ARWA-Noonan…
Extracts:
ANSTO – Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation – is the predominant source of existing and future radioactive waste to be disposed and stored at Kimba.
ARWA report a five-fold increase in Low Level Waste (LLW) to be disposed at Kimba, with the existing 2 490 m3 LLW intended to increase to a total of 13 287 m3 LLW over the next 100-year period all to be dumped near Kimba.
ARWA states: “The estimated volumes of ANSTO’s future Low Level Waste and Intermediate Level Waste are substantially greater than previously reported.”
ANSTO has produced over 92% of Australia’s existing total LLW Inventory.
ANSTO intend to produce over 98% of future LLW in Australia over the next 100 years.
ANSTO are responsible for over 99.5% of the radioactivity in Australia’s total LLW inventory to be dumped at Kimba.
ARWA reports only a total of 5 (five) m3 of LLW originates from non-ANSTO and non-Commonwealth agency sources
total Hospital existing and future LLW is reported at only 3 m3
total “Research and Education” sector existing and future LLW is reported at only 2 m3
Claims that a national LLW disposal facility is needed at Kimba for hospital and medical waste are false.
ANSTO are near solely responsible for plans to more than double Australia’s total Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) inventory
ANSTO have produced and hold 96.5% of Australia’s existing ILW packaged inventory at Lucas Heights
ANSTO propose to generate 97% of future ILW in Australia over the next 50-year period
ARWA reports Australia’s total inventory of ILW including nuclear materials, existing and future wastes over the next 50-year period, is 4 377 m3, these hazardous wastes are to be transported to Kimba for indefinite above ground storage.
Hospitals are stated to hold a total of only a single m3 of existing ILW with no future ILW arising.
Nuclear materials feature ANSTO’s nuclear fuel wastes – that were described as “highly hazardous” material by ARPANSA’s inaugural CEO John Loy in evidence to an NSW Parliamentary Inquiry.
Based on ARWA’s Report, all non-ANSTO sources produce on average only approx. 1.3 m3 per year of LLW over the next 100 years and produce approx. 1.34 m3 per year of ILW over the next 50 years.
Energy Resources of Australia’s chairman, two directors, say they’ll resign after pressure from Rio Tinto and traditional owners
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-03/nt-rio-tinto-calls-for-era-chairman-to-resign/101497342?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web&fbclid=IwAR3v3JbtHkVxHubJeOaWROwz0GqlpR_9Lhmx_RkoCpSr2oBelxPKoBddv34 By Daniel Fitzgerald,
The chairman and two directors of a company responsible for cleaning up a massive uranium mine on the edge of Kakadu have announced their intention to resign, following pressure from its major shareholder, Rio Tinto, and criticism from traditional owners.
Key points:
- Energy Resources of Australia is responsible for the clean-up of Ranger uranium mine, on the edge of Kakadu
- Its chairman and two directors have announced their intention to resign, after pressure from Rio Tinto
- It comes after a commissioned report suggested the company could consider developing a second uranium mine in the region
Rio Tinto on Monday publicly called for Energy Resources of Australia’s (ERA) chairman Peter Mansell to resign, four days after an independent report commissioned by the company suggested it could consider developing a second uranium mine next to Kakadu National Park.
Mirarr traditional owners have long objected to the potential mining of the ERA-owned Jabiluka uranium deposit — a position which Rio Tinto supports — and fiercely rejected the suggestion they might allow it to be mined.
Mr Mansell and two other directors not affiliated with Rio Tinto this afternoon said they would resign, “once a clear funding solution” for the cash-strapped company is arrived at.
In a statement to the ASX, ERA said the three board members would resign, “noting the requests from Rio Tinto” for Mr Mansell to consider his position.
Mine clean-up could cost $1.2 billion more than expected
ERA said the directors notified Rio Tinto of their intention to resign last week, before Rio Tinto’s public announcement.
Earlier this year, ERA estimated rehabilitation works could cost up to $1.2 billion more than expected and take workers until 2028 to complete the job — two years longer than initially planned.
Rio Tinto chief executive Australia, Kellie Parker said the company was committed to the rehabilitation of the Ranger mine “in a way that is consistent with the wishes of the Mirarr people”.
“However, given our recent dealings with the Independent Board Committee [IBC] and last week’s release of the Grant Thornton valuation report, we do not believe that can be achieved without renewal within ERA’s board,” Ms Parker said.
“There remains a strong difference of opinion between Rio Tinto and the IBC on the terms of rehabilitation funding, with the IBC’s view that successful rehabilitation could underpin potential future growth opportunities, despite the Mirarr people’s long-held opposition to further uranium mining on their country.”
Justin O’Brien, the chief executive of Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the Mirarr people, said the Commonwealth may need to step in to ensure the safe clean-up of Ranger.
“We are extremely concerned that the Commonwealth is relying on a company that has publicly announced it does not have the funds to complete the rehabilitation work,” Mr O’Brien said.
“This public stoush over whether or not ‘magical’ uranium deposits in a World Heritage listed wetland and indigenous cultural landscape should be mined is a question of national public policy.”
On June 30, ERA had $132 million cash in hand and $537 million held by the Commonwealth government in a trust fund for the Ranger rehabilitation.
Rio Tinto said while a funding solution for the rehabilitation was being agreed, the company was “progressing discussions to amend an existing $100 million credit facility to assist ERA with its management of immediate liquidity issues”.
An ERA report released in August said cost overruns on the Ranger rehabilitation “have been caused by a number of factors including complexities in technical risk management, project delays and additional scope matters involving unbudgeted costs”.
Legislation was introduced to Federal parliament last month to grant ERA an extension to its rehabilitation schedule.
Kimba community groups need to pose these hard questions to Ministers Madeleine King and Ed Husic, and to ANSTO ARWA and ARPANSA
In order to establish fully and properly the breaches by the federal government as to its Kimba nuclear installation, community group opposing the installation proposals need to immediately send out this formal request to the various persons and organisations listed below
KIMBA COMMUNITY
Formal requests for Kimba proposals:
- What are the earthworks being carried out or planned in connection with
the government’s proposed nuclear waste facility - Are these earthworks confined to the Napandee farm site
- If not what other land in the Kimba region is affected by the earthworks
- How much actual physical work has been carried
- By whom and how was this work authorised
- Was any licence issued by ARPANSA for his work
- If not and why not as is required by the guidance codes and standards of
IAEA - Was a progressive safety case started for these earthworks
- If not how was the work justified without community consultation and
involvement - How have the environmental aspects of these earthworks been dealt with
- Have there been any environmental studies done
- Has the community generally been consulted on the environmental studies
or referrals - Will the community be involved by consultation as to all aspects of the
earthworks as to the environmental implications
PLEASE immediately provide:
• the plans and other details for for the earthworks
• the environmental studies and assessments for this work
• any licences or applications for licences
• a full copy of the environmental referral
This list of requests should given to:
Hon. Madeleine King Hon. Ed Husic as the responsible ministers
The chief executive officers of ARWA ANSTO and ARPANSA
Meghan Quinn PSM as the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Science,
Energy and Resources
Andrew Metcalfe AO as the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Water
and the Environment
Greens Senator Barbara Pocock calls on the Federal Government to suspend work on South Australian nuclear waste site
Call to suspend work on SA nuclear waste site InDaily , Stephanie Richards, 20 Sept22, The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation in December applied for judicial review in an attempt to thwart construction of the controversial radioactive waste storage facility at Napandee near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, arguing they weren’t properly consulted before the site was selected.
Despite the active legal challenge, the Federal Court was told in June that the government had already approved plans to begin earthworks.
That prompted South Australian Greens Senator Barbara Pocock to last week write to federal Resources Minister Madeleine King asking her to commit to suspending all preparatory work and construction at the site pending the outcome of the court proceedings.
“The Barngarla people are unanimously opposed to the waste dump,” she wrote in the letter, seen by InDaily.
“The site is an important part of their culture and heritage, yet they were not consulted on the proposal.
“In light of the Barngarla opposition and lack of consultation, I write to ask that you commit to suspending all preparatory work and construction in relation to building the waste dump at Napandee, pending the outcome of the current judicial review and court proceedings underway.”
……………………….new information released by the federal government reveals it is spending three times more than Barngarla Traditional Owners fighting the project in the Federal Court.
In response to a question on notice lodged by Pocock, the government stated that between December and July, it had spent $343,457.44 on legal fees.
That compares to the approximate $124,000 spent by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation over the same period.
The Native Title group estimates that the total cost incurred by the federal government would run into the millions.
Pocock said the disparity between the spending was “disproportionate and just unfair”.
“This is a David and Goliath case,” she said.“The spend so far shows that the government is doing all in their power to minimise the voices and traditional rights of the Barngarla people.”…………….
The Napandee site was selected by the former Morrison Government in November last year, with then Resources Minister Keith Pitt saying the government had secured “majority support” from the local community after more than “six years of consultation”.
But Barngarla Traditional Owners opposed the project and argued they were not included in the consultation.
South Australian Labor has long called for Barngarla people to have the right to veto the project, with Premier Peter Malinauskas telling ABC Radio Adelaide this morning that the state government had expressed its views to the federal government…………..
South AustralianPremier backs traditional owners in saying no to nuclear waste facility.
Above” Barngarla traditional owner, Linda Dare with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Kyam Maher, Premier Peter Malinauskas, and Barngarla traditional owner, Daw Taylor. Picture: Jason Bilney, Chairman of Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation
Extracts Adelaide Now, 15 Sept 2022, Premier Peter Malinauskas has thrown his support behind traditional owners trying to stop a nuclear waste facility being built on Native Title land near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula. On Thursday, during the state government’s country cabinet tour, the Premier said he supported the Barngarla people who have been fighting to stop the proposed project…
Mr Malinauskas said though his government did not have the power to stop the project, he did support the Barngarla people and their cause, and would use his position to influence the Labor federal government.
“Ultimately, the nuclear waste facility is a matter for the federal government,” he said.
“However, the state government’s position is that the local Indigenous community should have the opportunity to have a veto on this proposal. “While the state government doesn’t necessarily have the legislative ability to act, the government does have the ability at a political level to raise concerns where relevant.” …
Chairman for BDAC, Jason Bilney, said it was good to see Mr Malinauskas backing the Barngarla people and hoped the federal government would do the same. …
It’s about the Statement from the Heart, truth-telling, and having a voice for First Nations people to be heard.
“It’s our country, we’ve been here for over 60,000 years and it’s about having us at the table and listening to First Nations voices, especially when we don’t want a nuclear waste dump on our country.”
One legal win for Aboriginal people in South Australia gives hope to the Barngarla people who are fighting the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan
Nuclear waste site in spotlight following Barngarla court win, Traditional Owners say they fear the destruction that an accident at the waste dump could cause to Country.
By Keira Jenkins, Source: The Point,, 6 SEP 2022,
Barngarla Traditional Owners are fighting for access to a number of federal government documents regarding the proposed nuclear waste facility near Kimba, South Australia.
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) and its lawyers have requested the documents that the federal government relied on to choose the 900 hectare site more than 400 kilometres north-west of Adelaide
The argument over the documents is part of a federal court challenge launched by Barngarla people.
Jason Bilney is the chair of the BDAC. He told NITV Barngarla people were not properly consulted about the facility, and were excluded from a community ballot.
“It’s very disrespectful, very hurtful to my people as a community and to my past and present Elders,” he said.
“It’s a disgrace.”
After the Supreme Court overturned authorisation to drill on South Australia’s Lake Torrens last week, Barngarla people are hopeful their fight can lead to protection for the Kimba site as well.
Mr Bilney is joined in the fight against the facility by Lez and Dawn Taylor, who grew up in Kimba.
Standing at the site, which has been fenced off, Dawn Taylor said she’s deeply upset that nuclear waste could be stored on this Country……………………………..
Government officials didn’t talk to the Barngarla people for the study.
Barngarla Elder Harry Dare said the Traditional Owners of the Country should have been involved in this study.
“We know what’s on our Country, they choose not to let us go and have a look at that Country but we already know what’s out there,” he said.
‘I still feel strong’
But regardless of what has occurred up to this point, Jason Bilney said Barngarla people will continue to fight for their Country.
“[The government] think they’re going to put [the facility] there, they’ve still got a long drawn out process and for any government, it doesn’t look good to go against First Nations people,” he said.
“I still feel strong, I still feel proud to keep up this fight for our people, being up there and doing it for our community.
“It has taken its toll for a lot of our family. It’s sad but we’ve got to keep going.”
Barngarla woman Linda Dare said she hopes this fight means the voices of her people will be heard.
“We want them to stop what they’re doing, we want them to listen to us and hear us, take the time to sit down and listen and talk to us not disrespect us and put waste up on our Country,” she said.
Is the Australian government aware of the human rights implications of the ill-chosen Kimba nuclear waste dump plan?
Peter Remta 3 Sept 22, Dr Marcos Orellana being the special rapporteur mandated as to the human rights
implications of toxic and nuclear waste is gravely concerned about the Australian
government’s proposals for Kimba which have been heightened by refusing his
proposed visit to Australia and the production of all appropriate documents.
In view of this I understand that he will be reporting the situation to the United Nations
Human Rights Commissioner which in turn will bring it before the full body of the United
Nations and may I add that this is being done with a view to embarrassing Australia at
the behest as I predicted of many of our Pacific islands “friendly” neighbours
What is interesting about the Kimba situation for the special rapporteur is that it does
not involve the rights of a minority group but covers the entire general community of the
region and that from information gained by him a large majority of South Australia’s
population is strongly against the federal government’s proposals for nuclear waste
management in that state.
Put bluntly this is the end of the Kimba proposal as in light of the foregoing IAEA and
other international bodies will prevent any licensing or other progress with the
government’s proposals with the appropriate public criticisms for justification.
There must be something clearly afoot as I understand that some European human
rights lawyers are already looking at possible actions within appropriate human rights
courts in Europe against the Australian government which invariably have a very low
standard of proving a successful claim.
My educated guess would be an award of €500 million against the Australian
government which again is another outgoing it can ill afford
I wonder how much of this is known by the federal government particularly at
ministerial level.
The Australian nuclear lobby’s embarrassing claim about Kimba nuclear dump plan and nuclear medicine.
Peter Remta 3 Sept 22, Apparently the Australian government has instructed its Geneva legation to inform both the special rapporteur and the Human Rights Commissioner’s office that any attempts to stop Kimba will lead to a disastrous world shortage of nuclear medicine which will predominantly affect third world countries including the Pacific island nations.
What a great diplomatic masterstroke!
This gets better than Days of our Lives as the latest claim is that the opponents of the Kimba proposals are being financed by the overseas competitors to ANSTO in producing nuclear medicine
ANSTO has still failed to explain that the nuclear medicine being produced by it is becoming obsolete since the medical profession worldwide is turning away from it towards cheaper and above all far safer alternatives.
One of the major failings by the government in promoting the Kimba facility is that it never explained the true and unsafe nature of reactor generated nuclear medicine to the community with former Minister Keith Pitt being the main culprit.
No wonder ANSTO is now turning towards cosmetics as its main undertaking.
Ranger Mine uranium-contaminated waste trucked to Darwin suburb.
finding 50 kg of uranium tailings waste off-site is not a “small scale” event as claimed by ERA, and near three months for this radioactive event to make the media…
Potentially ‘deadly’ toxic waste accidentally trucked into Darwin
Energy Resources Australia is investigating how Ranger Mine toxic waste came to be transported through the Kakadu National Park and left on a truck in a Darwin suburb.
In June an excavator at Ranger Mine used to dig uranium tailings, was removed from the site with 50kg of mixed material still inside the vehicle.
The removal of any toxic waste is a major breach of Energy Resources Australia’s Ranger Mine rehabilitation plan as it poses a deadly contamination risk to people and the environment.
According to Energy Resources Australia the compacted waste was in a steel encased void of an excavator and not detected by radiation screening before leaving the site………………………
Supervising Scientist Keith Taylor said the breach was “regrettable” but he was confident there was no risk posed to people or the environment.
“There have been other incidents of this nature, most notably the 2004 prosecution which is of public record,” he said.
“There have been others as well but that is the most notable.”
Mr Taylor said scientists and ERA were working together to review the ‘clearance processes,’ which includes a radiation screening.
Mirarr Traditional Owners and the NLC were made aware of the incident on June 3.
In February, ERA announced the rehabilitation plan for Ranger Mine had blown out to an estimated $1.2bn.
It left the company scrambling for cash and relying heavily on its major shareholder Rio Tinto.
Refuting the nonsense by Sam Usher of the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency in favour of dumping nuclear waste at Kimba, South Australia
Mr Sam Usher
Chief Executive Officer
Australian Radioactive Waste Agency
Dear Mr Usher
I am amazed at the rather unconvincing and inaccurate comments bordering to some extent on outright silliness in your letter in the Sunday Mail of 14 August 2022 regarding the safety of the proposed nuclear waste facility at Kimba
While you claim that it will be a highly engineered and purpose-built facility the simple fact remains that it will struggle to get the necessary licences for its construction and operations since it fails to meet the basic prescriptions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
To begin with the location chosen for the facility is completely unsuitable as it is in the heart of prime agricultural land which will undoubtedly have a devastating economic and social effect on the region
What is more the whole environmental and geophysical setting of the Kimba region is completely inappropriate for the facility adding to the unsafe nature of the proposal
This situation will only be exacerbated by using an above the ground structure particularly with regard to the intermediate level waste which even for temporary storage should be geologically buried as the safest possible option
Considering that you speak of our country’s national interest most of your letter is confusing in its meaningless management speak and fails to provide any proper and accurate information mainly for the local community but generally for the Australian population
Your mention of the regulatory aspects of the nuclear industry in Australia is simply unconvincing when despite numerous requests the federal government has failed to give the Kimba community the technical and monetary assistance so that it can have its own independent assessment of the government’s proposals
Perhaps the most blatant failings by the federal government are that it has never developed a progressive safety case for the local community which is considered an undisputed necessity by international requirements and best practices and the persistent refusal to provide the community with the inventories of the radionuclides for the intermediate level waste intended to be stored at Kimba
You should in your capacity be well aware that the safety case must be started when a particular location is first considered for any form of nuclear installation and must fully involve the local community at the outset on a continuing basis so that it is kept properly informed of all aspects of the installation’s development
However the conduct and actions by the federal government in all its capacities including the so-called independent regulator in ARPANSA with regard to establishing the nuclear waste facility at Kimba are nothing short of disingenuity tantamount to a deprivation of human rights
Your letter stemmed from the fact that your Agency did not include any information on the transport of nuclear waste to and from Kimba in its environmental referral and study for the facility
Unless you mean that there is radioactivity in everything on this planet then your claim that nuclear or radioactive material has been transported safely around Australia for sixty years is simply wrong – perhaps you should tell me where most radioactive material is currently being transported within Australia excluding the uranium mines and I will then give you my answer
If your comments are not enough I understand from a relatively reliable source that you are now pushing the federal government to refuse a visit by the UNHCR special rapporteur mandated for nuclear waste and provide him with any pertinent information
I write of course with the knowledge and experience of the Azark Project facility at Leonora which in all respects including its relationships with and support by leading international experts on nuclear waste and the design and planning of the facility which is regarded as probably the best in the world and is light years ahead of the imprecise and grossly unacceptable efforts by the federal government and its various entities including your yet to be constituted agency
All I need to say is that you and your bureaucratic colleagues should stop playing your childish games clothed in sheer ignorance for Kimba – and in this I include ARPANSA – before you recklessly plunge its region into some nuclear disaster which will be completely beyond your competence and control
Yours sincerely
PETER REMTA 23 August 2022
Letter from Sam Usher Letter to the Editor Sunday Mail August 14th 2022
Nuclear Safety
I write in relation to “Alarm on nuclear waste transport” (Sunday Mail July 31st).
The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility will be highly engineered and purpose built, consistent with international best practice and Australia’s national interest.
It will safely and securely manage Australia’s radioactive waste, and protect heritage and environment during construction and operation.
There is no one application you can make to site, construct and operate the NRWMF in Australia.
Multiple applications are expected and have been prepared for across many years.
In line with this, there is an environmental application which relates to the construction, operations, decommissioning and closure stages.
The safe packaging for transport, and the routes will be assessed.
Subject to the highest of regulatory and safety standards, radioactive material has been safely transported around Australia and the world for about 60 years. The nuclear industry is, quite rightly, one of the most regulated in Australia, and we recognise and appreciate the role of regulators.
SAM USHER, Australian Radioactive Waste Agency chief executive officer
Traditional owners seek documents in nuclear dump case
The Transcontinental. By Tim Dornin, August 15 2022 ,
Traditional owners have asked for wide-ranging access to federal government documents as part of their efforts to block the construction of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation is engaged in Federal Court action seeking to stop the proposed dump at Napandee, near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.
On Monday their lawyers outlined the reasons why the government should hand over a considerable volume of material it relied on in choosing the site and in preparing supportive legislation.
Some of the most contentious material related to correspondence the applicants contend must have taken place between then resources minister Keith Pitt and his department.
Others related to commitments the previous government made not to impose the dump on an unwilling community.
But the Commonwealth argued the Barngarla had been given a “complete record of the decision-making process” and what was being asked for went far beyond an orthodox judicial review.
“They should focus their efforts upon minister Pitt’s conduct rather than essentially seeking to have a royal commission into the cacophony that surrounds the drafting of legislation and the announcement of particular political decisions,” the court was told.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth indicated she was mindful to allow discovery of some of the material, regarding it relevant to the case.
However, she asked the parties to negotiate further to potentially narrow the scope of the documents being sought, particularly in two of the seven categories outlined.
Justice Charlesworth also cautioned that while production of the documents might be ordered, whether or not they proved admissible in the substantive case, now likely to be heard in March next year, was yet to be determined.
The case will return to court next week.
The Barngarla launched their action last year seeking to overturn the coalition government’s decision to develop the dump by quashing the ministerial declaration.
The corporation also recently wrote to new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese urging him to scrap plans for the dump.
It said the previous federal government had tried to silence the traditional owners at every turn, denying their right to participate in a community ballot to gauge local support for the site.
The corporation said the coalition also refused access to the land to undertake a proper heritage survey and tried to remove its right to judicial review.
Ahead of Monday’s hearing, Barngarla chairman Jason Bilney said it was hoped the new federal government would quickly realise how badly the former government handled the project.
“We fought 21 years to win our native title and if we have to fight 21 years to stop this nuclear waste dump damaging our country, then we will have to do it,” he said…… more https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/7861791/traditional-owners-seek-docs-in-dump-case/
How even small nuclear war would kill billions in apocalyptic famine
https://www.9news.com.au/national/even-small-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-from-famine/0aadd094-e5be-471f-8278-b8bf485f759a By Mark Saunokonoko • Senior Journalist Aug 16, 2022,
Australia may be the best place in the world to shelter if nuclear war broke out, a study has predicted, although an “influx of refugees” from Asia and other regions would likely rush the country to try and survive the atomic holocaust.
Various apocalypse scenarios showed even a small nuclear war would cause devastating climate chaos, plunging the world into mass famine and starving billions to death.
The study estimated more than 2 billion people would die from a contained nuclear war between India and Pakistan, while more than 5 billion around the world would perish inside two years if the US and Russia launched thousands of nukes at each other.
Nuclear strikes on major cities and industrial areas would unleash massive firestorms, the peer-reviewed study said, injecting soot into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface and severely limiting food production.
Such catastrophic “soot loadings” would cause at least 10-15 years of disruption to global climate, researchers said.
As land and ocean food production faltered, and in the face of worsening hunger, the study said food exporting countries such as Australia would hunker down and hoard supplies.
“Wherever there’s scarcity, you start to see more conflicts,” Dr Ryan Heneghan, a co-author of the study from Queensland University of Technology, told 9news.com.au.
“Whether that makes Australia a (post-nuclear war) target, I don’t know.”
Being a food exporter and its location in the southern hemisphere, away from likely conflict zones, were the key factors that meant Australia was able to weather a nuclear catastrophe better than most, Heneghan said, with New Zealand not far behind.
“Australia has some resilience if there were drops in food productivity because of changes in climate caused by a nuclear war,” he said.
“We already produce more than enough food for our population.”
But waves of migrants would inevitably put “pressures” on any Australian stockpiles.
One factor not included in the models, but which could seriously affect Australia’s ability to cope, was the country’s lack of domestic fuel supplies, Heneghan said.
“Australia isn’t energy independent.
“So we would probably have shortages of fuel.”
Australia, the planet’s sixth largest country after Russia, Canada, China, the US and Brazil, would face huge challenges trying to transport food from agricultural heartlands into big, densely populated urban centres, he said.
“Even though we might make enough food, we might not be able to move it to where it needs to go,” he said, calling that a “big caveat” to the study’s models.
Researchers modelled the impacts of six atmospheric soot-injection scenarios, based on one week of nuclear war, on crop and fish supplies and other livestock and food production.
Even if humans reduced food waste reduction and began to eat crops grown primarily as animal feed and biofuel, researchers predicted livestock and aquatic food production could not compensate for reduced crop output in most nations.
Any nuclear weapon detonation that produces more than 5 teragrams (5 trillion grams) of soot, such as 100 warheads fired between India and Pakistan, would likely cause mass food shortages in almost all countries, the study said.
A nuclear war between the US and Russia could send more than 150 teragrams of soot into the stratosphere.
The bushfires that swept across Australia in 2019-20 generated 0.3 – 1 teragrams of smoke, which swirled around the world and lingered for many months.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX now leaving junk in our own backyard
Independent Australia, By Darren Crawford | 10 August 2022 After a SpaceX capsule crashed onto an Australian farm, we’re left wondering if Elon Musk will clean up his own mess, writes Darren Crawford.
ACCORDING TO the ABC, the Australian Space Agency (ASA) has confirmed that debris found in a sheep paddock in the Snowy Mountains region of New South Wales, Australia, belongs to Elon Musk’s SpaceX Dragon capsule, which was launched in November 2020.
Local authorities were alerted after nearby residents heard a loud bang earlier this year on 9 July. It is now thought the bang was the noise of the capsule re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere. New South Wales Police and the ASA visited one of the sites on Saturday 31 July and confirmed that two of the pieces are from a SpaceX mission.
According to the ABC, the ASA is continuing to engage with its counterparts in the U.S. as well as other parts of the Commonwealth and local authorities.
An ASA spokesperson said:
“The agency is operating under the Australian Government Space Re-entry Debris Plan which outlines roles and responsibilities for key Australian government agencies and committees in supporting the response to space re-entry debris.”
So who is responsible for the clean-up?
According to the ABC report, the space debris will remain in place for now. However, the pieces could eventually be returned to U.S. soil.
Australian National University’s Institute of Space deputy director Dr Cassandra Steer said there was an obligation under international space law to repatriate any debris to the country from where it originated.
Dr Steer went on to confirm that “Any space object, or part thereof, has to be repatriated” and should be sent back to the U.S. However, SpaceX has only confirmed that the debris is theirs and is yet to commit to the costs associated with returning it to the U.S.
Dr Steer added:
“We have clarity in terms of lines of responsibilities. The U.S. is liable for any damage that is caused by this space debris… and Australia could go to the U.S. and seek some form of compensation if there are any costs involved in cleaning it up.”
Elon Musk and SpaceX have a poor environmental record
As reported earlier this year, Elon Musk and fellow billionaires Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos are currently participating in a dick-swinging rocket contest to see who can get to Mars first. Suffering from massive rocket envy, these three men are speeding up the climate change process by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with every launch.
The Guardian reports that one rocket launch alone can release up to 300 tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s upper atmosphere and it can stay there for years. This is in comparison to a standard long-haul flight which produces three tons of carbon dioxide per passenger/per flight, into the lower atmosphere.
These impacts do not include what happens on the ground during a launch, including the heat and noise pollution in the immediate area, or the impacts on local wildlife.
There appear to be few controls put in place to protect the planet and its inhabitants from falling space junk by Elon Musk and SpaceX. In March 2021, a SpaceX rocket blew up on launch and debris was scattered throughout the protected area. According to a local non-profit environmental group, it took three months to clean up the mess.
According to the report, launch site ditches on SpaceX land and public property in the U.S. have dumped runoff water directly into the tidal flats threatening local fish breeding grounds, and public beaches and roads have been closed for longer than the agreed times.
Finally, at an earlier launch in 2018, a jettisoned SpaceX booster rocket missed its target drone ship a few hundred kilometres out to sea and destroyed itself on impact slamming into the ocean at 500 km/hour.
So, will Elon Musk and SpaceX clean up their mess down under?
This is the great unknown, as Elon Musk’s environmental record in relation to his SpaceX program is extremely poor.
It is also clear, as can be seen by his recently abandoned Twitter purchase, that Elon Musk doesn’t care who he burns, or how hard he burns them, to get his own way.
It is apparent that Elon Musk sees the increasing amount of pollution produced by his SpaceX endeavours as little more than collateral damage and less of a threat to our civilisation. Similarly, he doesn’t care whose backyard he trashes (as long as it’s not his, obviously).
Instead of turning his immense intelligence (and wealth) to solving our current problems, Elon Musk (and his billionaire space mates) seek to exacerbate these problems by polluting the planet further.
It will be interesting to see whether he does the right thing by the Australian Government and its people and pays for the clean-up of his mess.
Update, 10 August 2022:
The ABC is reporting that SpaceX has confirmed that the space debris spread throughout an Australian sheep paddock is indeed remnants of their Dragon Capsule and is sending a team down under to investigate………………………….
What was not stated was whether any ASA or government agencies were aware of or engaged in any of SpaceX’s planning. Space Law Lecturer at UNSW Canberra, Duncan Blake, wondered if they had coordinated with Australian agencies prior to their risk assessment — “If they didn’t, then that seems somewhat arrogant to make a decision that affects Australia without consulting Australians,” he said.
There has been no mention of the cost of removal or the debris, or as to whether Elon Musk and SpaceX will be more honest and open in the future and advise all Australians about the potential damage falling SpaceX junk may cause in their country.
https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/elon-musks-spacex-now-leaving-junk-in-our-own-backyard,16650
Alarm on nuclear waste transport
Clare Peddie, Sunday Mail 31 July 2022, Rural 1st Edition p.22
A DECISION to exclude the risks of shipping and trucking intermediate-level radioactive waste from the environmental impact assessment of the planned Kimba nuclear waste dump has riled MPs, experts and Whyalla locals.
Independent environment campaigner and consultant David Noonan said Whyalla was the only port in the region with the infrastructure to take the 110-tonne casks the waste would be shipped in.
Mr Noonan wrote to the federal government in June demanding an explanation for excluding shipping and transport of ‘waste residues from reprocessing spent research reactor fuel’ from the EIS.
‘It is nonsensical and contrary to the public interest,’ he said. ‘It is just not credible to claim a later separate referral and assessment can somehow cover (it) … after the dump has been pushed through.’
Environment Department assistant secretary Kylie Calhoun said separating the transport issue would result in a ‘better-informed assessment of (it) at a future point in time.’
South Australian Greens senator Barbara Pocock said that was an ‘unacceptable’ position.
State Giles MP Eddie Hughes called for a ‘round-table dialogue about the responsible long-term disposal of our domestic long-lived intermediate waste, not moving it from one interim site to another’, given it ultimately required ‘deep geological disposal’.
Nuclear industry expert and author Ian Lowe, an adjunct professor at Flinders University, said the ‘serious’ transport risks deserved proper scrutiny and consultation.
Whyalla resident Andrew Williams has raised his concerns with the council.
Mr Williams said he firmly believed the transport routes should be publicly disclosed and subject to extensive consultation.
1.This month.
Zoom webinar – “Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange.”
April 7th at 11:30 am PST / 2:30 pm EST
Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange”
Join us for an informative webinar with renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Brian Toon, as he discusses the environmental risks and global impacts of a nuclear war. Despite the potential damage caused by the blast from even small nuclear weapons, many countries continue to invest in and expand nuclear arsenals. Professor Toon will provide a scientific assessment of civilian fatalities, agricultural failures, climate concerns, and complications with food supply that would follow any international nuclear conflict. We need to plan how to prevent nuclear conflict and avoid catastrophe. Politicians and military planners must be made aware of global climate and agricultural complications that would ensue. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from, and engage in, this vital conversation
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 