Secret nuclear waste dump deal done by ruthless Australian govt
no comparable country had a national radioactive waste policy based on secret documents and agreements.
Fallout over NT nuclear dump site, LINDSAY MURDOCH AND TOM ARUP, February 27, 2010
Dianne Stokes says the Rudd government’s decision to push ahead with plans to dump nuclear waste on the red-soil land north of Tennant Creek has caused trouble in her Warlmanpa tribe. ”People have given away land that doesn’t belong to them … now there is big trouble among us,” she said. Continue reading
Aborigines will eventually have to bear the cost of maintaining nuclear waste dump?
Group of 40 okays NT nuclear dump NT News NIGEL ADLAM February 27th, 2010
“…The deal between Canberra and the NLC has a curious footnote _ the dump site must be handed back to traditional owners after 300 years…”
Murky Muckaty nuclear deal by the Australian government
A lengthy scientific study had identified Outback South Australia as the best site for the dump.
But SA is a State and, therefore, had the constitutional power denied the Northern Territory to tell Canberra where to go.
Group of 40 okays NT nuclear dump | Northern Territory News,NIGEL ADLAM February 27th, 2010
the nuclear waste dump deal was done – not with the 395 people who consider themselves traditional owners of the whole of Muckaty but with the 40 who are recognised as the traditional owners of the small waste dump site. Continue reading
Should we allow bribing of a few to bring radioactive poisons to future generations?
It raises the question tho, should a community, or NLC, on receiving a bribe…have the right to approve a dump when it is the next 1000 generations who may have to…wear the impact of leakage?
New Matilda, Markob 24/02/10 “…the problem of allowing local communities to decide these things, for different reasons than Ferguson’s. This community clearly feels that this is not right – why would you put a waste dump at the confluence of 3 major rivers?- but that can change, unlikely as it sounds. It raises the question tho, should a community, or NLC, on receiving a bribe such as annual income and new housing, some jobs guarding a dump, sw pool etc, have the right to approve a dump when it is the next 1000 generations who may have to do repair work, or wear the impact of leakage? Who should decide?
Land rights are one thing, self determination another great principle, but what happens when the guardians simply want their people to have an acceptable standard of living and are sick of watching babies die, and sign anything?
Vermont sets precedent for other states in blocking nuclear power
The vote offers an example for companion initiatives in other states.
(USA) Vermont Vote Signals Nuclear Retreat and Sets Precedent for Other States’ Action
Beyond Nuclear 27 Feb 2010, “..the Vermont State Senate voted 26 to 4 to block federal relicensing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant operated by its parent company Entergy Nuclear. The vote is an overwhelming statement of “no confidence” Continue reading
Nuclear stillbirth for Australia and the world
No doubt Australian nuclear enthusiasts, such as Ziggy Switkowski and Barry Brook, will claim that Obama’s decision vindicates their nuclear advocacy. But really it deviates from their version of reality so far as to shatter it.
Nuclear? It’s just too expensive, for us and the rest of the world, Sudney Morning Herald MICHAEL R. JAMES February 26, 2010 Continue reading
Shameful politics behind Rudd govt’s new radioactive waste policy
This legislation fails to honour federal Labor’s clear pre- election promise and existing policy position
Radioactive politics ABC The Drum Unleashed -25 Feb 2010, Continue reading
Australian Women Walk to Oppose Nuclear Waste Dump
“Most of the indigenous people of central Australia are opposed to a nuclear waste dump on their land and we need to stand by them. Opposing the nuclear industry is vital to supporting safe and peaceful future.”
Women’s Peace Walk to Take People’s Opposition to Nuke Dump to Canberra | Indymedia Australia 24 Feb 2010 Continue reading
Govt lies about need for Northern Territory nuke waste dump
Another furphy, this one directly peddled by the Minister, says access to nuclear medicine in Australia is dependent on putting a nuclear waste dump in the NT
Radioactive politics, ABC The Drum Unleashed – 25 Feb 2010, There are a number of furphies about the type of nuclear waste that is produced in Australia. Continue reading
Why Rudd must keep Garrett as Environment Minister
Peter Garrett was known for his strong anti-nuclear and pro-environment stand. That was before he became a politician. And of course, especially in the Labor Party, you have to be a “team player”. Peter Garrett has been a “team player” on matters like the Tasmanian pulp mill, and on widening the ALP’s policy to allow new uranium mines.
It will be no surprise when Garrett toes the line on future uranium/nuclear/radioactive waste decisions made by the Rudd government, as it kow-tows to BHP Billiton, and its other big industry backers. Garrett will be made to take the flak.
Method in Obama’s madness- nuclear power just not viable?
Though the President’s critics on the left do not recognize a strategic move in the loan guarantees to new nuclear, there is very likely method in what seems madness. The nuclear industry proved in the 1970s and 1980s, to those who were paying attention, that it is not viable.
New Nuclear to be Hoist on its own Petard, RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD, February 23, 2010“…the phrase hoist with one’s own petard…means ‘to be harmed by one’s own plan to harm someone else’ or ‘to fall into one’s own trap’…” (Wikipedia)Announcements from the Obama administration of new financial support for the nuclear industry were met by declarations that the long-anticipated nuclear renaissance is finally at hand but the reality is quite different. There is a very real possibility that the President has just caught the nuclear industry in a trap of its own making. Continue reading
Nuclear news- last week and the coming weeks
Today, as I write this, Martin Ferguson is speaking on ABC Radio, Darwin. He’s explaining how the Federal Government will put a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station, while at the same time will repeal the Howard Government’s Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act.
So the Muckaty nuclear waste dump will be 1. voluntary (i.e. asked for by some aborigines), and 2. will be for returning Australia’s “own” wastes,
originating from Sydney’s Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. (No question of radioactive wastes going to any of the States, or on Commonwealth or “whiteys'” land)
Sounds fine, doesn’t it? Let’s wait and see what happens when Obama gets to Australia in March, to talk about uranium sales to USA, under the GNEP, whereby wastes are to go back to the uranium’s place of origin.
U.S. State resists dumping of radioactive depleted uranium
(USA) Utah gov: 2 trains of SC waste won’t come to Utah, THE HUFFINGTON POST, Brock Bergakis, February 22, 2010. SALT LAKE CITY — About 6,500 tons of low-level radioactive waste from South Carolina won’t be coming to Utah as originally planned, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said Monday in announcing a verbal agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy.
Impossible to dump nuclear waste on white Australians’ land
ANSTO executive Steven McIntosh said …“We cannot really comment upon that policy process [of siting remote dumps]…….. but politics frankly was the determining factor.”
How to site a nuclear waste dump – Crikey.
22 February 2010 Apart from the dispute between traditional owners, there’s a more fundamental question of why remote areas are preferred for nuclear waste dumps. The prerequisites routinely mentioned – geological stability and distance from groundwater – can readily be achieved elsewhere, without the expense and danger of transporting nuclear waste thousands of kilometres. Continue reading
How the nuclear lobby has bought politicians and media
nothing about atomic energy has really changed.Except this: $645 million spent on lobbying and media manipulation.
(USA)$600 Million Lipstick for a Dead Radioactive Pig THE HUFFINGTON POST, Harvey Wasserman February 22, 2010 The mystery has been solved.Where is this “new reactor renaissance” coming from?There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology. No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound. No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error. Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 