Disclaimer
http://www.antinuclear.net does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information’s, content contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website.
3 Comments »
Leave a Reply
1.This month.
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 
September 8 – Adelaide – Symposium on South Australia’s nuclear history:
Link for registration: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/south-australias-nuclear-past-present-and-future-tickets-48944656786?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/308523099705836
also:
Black Mist Burnt Country at National Museum in Canberra 24 August – 18 November
http://www.blackmistcountry.com.au
http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/black-mist-burnt-country
LikeLike
Hi,
on this website you summarize my submission to the federal inquiry as included below. I don’t think your summary is a correct reflection of my text and I refer your readers to the original document, which is available on the inquiry website. For example, I clearly make the point in my submission that there is currently no business case for nuclear power in Australia. Furthermore I do not say there or think that Fukushima has resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Neither do I make the point that Australia should have nuclear power, because we export uranium or because other nations have it.
In general I find your categorization into pro and anti unhelpful. I don’t see my submission in either camp.
Regards, Heiko Timmers
—————–
“Timmers, Heiko (63) Says Australia should have nuclear power because it exports uranium, because other nations have it, because it is low carbon, and with it, Australia can help against nuclear weapons proliferation – and because Australia needs to be ready for Generation IV reactors.
Says Australia should have the full nuclear fuel cycle. Present debate is too “emotional”. Says Fukushima resulted in greater nuclear safety measures. Sees nuclear power as making Australia more important internationally.
Recommends developing renewable energy. Recommends setting up a nuclear waste import industry. Recommends “we intensify our participation in the Generation IV International Forum ……reinvigoratie university training and research in nuclear engineering. …Our active participation in the global nuclear fuel cycle with uranium exports and spent fuel storage services, thus taking ethical and environmental responsibility for the planet and helping to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, may benefit our international standing. “
Enthuses about the future of molten salt reactors.”
—————–
LikeLike
Thank you, Mr Timmers, for your comment. I acknowledge that you did not say that Fukushima resulted in greater safety measures, (though I am surprised that you don’t think that)
While you make the point that nuclear power is not currently feasible – the whole theme of your submission is that Australia should be ready for later development of nuclear power. You talk about not “disengaging with nuclear power.” But Australia IS already disengaged,
What you really want – is Australia to ENGAGE with nuclear power, e.g by overturning its laws against nuclear activities.
You just word it carefully, without spelling it out.
LikeLike