Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Before this subject is lost, I wish that I had the wit to draft a new sub-heading to keep Nuclear Proliferation alive.

Surely the destruction of the Planet by the voracious Corporations, whether by war - Global warming - Nuclear proliferation, or whatever the Military/Corporate requires for their false, debt ridden economies may demand.

I am old fashioned enough to believe - no that is not true - rather I  expect the Politician elected by the majority of my electorate, to represent each and every one of us.

I am of the opinion that the elected politician is obliged, by the very fact of the millions of taxpayer dollars the incumbents have used to get a majority in parliament - to have a legal and moral obligation to the entire electorate.

On the Nuclear issue - I Emailed the Eden-Monaro Liberal, Mr. Gary Nairn, on 4 September 2006, at 3.37 pm.

Sir,

I am concerned about Nuclear proliferation and consider the debate on whether we should have Nuclear Reactors with enriched Uranium, is a major step backward.

Could you please confirm or deny that Silex Systems Ltd: received an exclusive Licence and Development Agreement in November 1996, for the application of SILEX Technology to uranium enrichment which was signed with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) the largest supplier of enrichment services in the world.  This means that enrichment of Uranium has been practicised [sic] at Lucas Heights?

Yours sincerely.

E.W. Graham. J.P..

NO ANSWER TO DATE.

And - 14 November 2006 9.04 AM.

Sir,

The previous Liberal Minister for Defence, Mr. Hills, organised an extremely comprehensive type of war games with the U.S. to be held in the Shoalwater Bay area of Queensland.

Nuclear powered U.S. warships will enter the Bay and launch Fighter/Bomber aircraft to drop live bombs on the mainland.

Landing crafts will "invade" the beaches and a "Defence" force (probably Australian) will attempt to defend.

That is how I understand it from my visits to Rockhampton.

The U.S. and the U.K. have been careless in their use of weapons made and constructed from Depleted Uranium, which they used in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq.

The long term radiation effect of these weapons will kill people in those countries for many years to come.

Has your Government obtained from the U.S. a guarantee that they will not use ANY Depleted Uranium on Australian Soil?

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Yours fraternally,

E.W. Graham. J.P.

NO ANSWER TO DATE.  Over to you Jay.

Nuclear Power : A Failed Technology

By Peter Kinrade
ACF Sustainable Cities and Industries Campaign Coordinator

Nuclear power has long been touted by the nuclear industry as a sustainable solution to the world's energy requirements. Despite the fact that nuclear energy production supplies less than 4 per cent of total world energy consumption, a figure virtually unchanged during the last 15 years despite major subsidies, the industry continues to make confident predictions about its future prospects.

A concrete sarcophagus encloses the crippled Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in an attempt to prevent any further release of radioactivity. Significant structural flaws have become evident and further radiation release remains high.

However, there are a number of reasons why nuclear power will never be a solution to the world's demand for clean and green energy. The radioactive wastes generated in nuclear power production must be isolated from the biosphere for in some cases hundreds of thousands of years before they cease to be dangerous. Despite enormous research efforts and expenditure, an effective long-term waste storage scheme is yet to be developed.

Nuclear reactor accidents have undermined arguments for the safety of nuclear power. The Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated 160,000 square kilometres of land, displaced at least 400,000 people and led to the premature deaths of incalculable numbers of people. In addition, ground water contamination, a potentially massive problem, is only just becoming evident. Claims by the nuclear industry that the 'safer' western-style reactors are not prone to Chernobyl-like disasters are dubious, given the near disasters at Windscale-Sellafield in the UK, Three Mile Island in the US and at the Monju reactor in Japan.

A young patient at the cancer clinic in the National Centre for Radiation Medicine in Ukraine. Many thousands of people have died or had their life shortened by the release of radioactivity following the Chernobyl disaster.

The Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other multilateral and bilateral safeguards are unable to prevent 'peaceful' nuclear power programs being linked to the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power programs involve nuclear scientists and technicians, research facilities and enriched uranium. In addition, spent fuel from reactors contains large quantities of plutonium. Most of this requires reprocessing to bring it to weapons-grade but safeguards provide only a partial barrier to this.

The potential for a power-weapons link has been greatly increased by the introduction of fast-breeder reactors that produce weapons-grade plutonium. The French superphoenix reactor alone is estimated to produce about 330 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium each year, enough to produce about 60 bombs. Some of the plutonium fuel for the superphoenix has almost certainly been produced from Australian uranium.

Spiralling costs and concerns about reactor safety and waste disposal have caused the nuclear power industry to stall in industrialised countries. The industry has now shifted its attention to rapidly developing countries such as Indonesia. In those countries, generally poor environmental and safety standards can only exacerbate the environmental risks associated with nuclear power. Furthermore, there is little doubt that a key motivation of many governments for acquiring nuclear power is to position themselves to develop nuclear weapons capability.

Nuclear power is not the answer to the world's need for a long-term supply of 'clean' and safe energy. But what are the alternatives, given the problematic nature of fossil-fuel energy sources such as coal, oil and gas?

In the short to medium term, major energy-efficiency programs and selective use of less greenhouse-intensive fossil fuel-based systems, such as natural gas and co-generation, can provide a transitional phase to sustainable energy systems. The recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report has estimated that energy-efficiency measures alone could cost-effectively reduce energy consumption in most industrialised countries by 20-30 per cent.

In the longer term, sustainable energy systems will have to be nuclear free and largely fossil-fuel free. Renewable systems, in particular solar energy, offer the best hope of providing the world with a safe, clean and sustainable energy supply. Solar radiation striking the earth each year is equal to about 178,000 terrawatts or about 15,000 times current global energy consumption.

Opponents of renewable energy – usually proponents of nuclear power, fossil fuels or both – frequently claim that it is either impossible, impractical or untried. But most renewable technologies are now well proven. In fact, renewable energy – solar, wind, micro-hydro, tidal and sustainably harvested biomass – already meets about 13 per cent of the world's commercial energy needs.

The Expert Group on Renewable Energy Technologies (EGRET) in Australia recently concluded that wide-scale application of solar technologies will be capable of producing electricity for around 5 cents/kWh within a few years. This would put solar power close to the costs of coal-fired electricity in Australia and 40-60 per cent below the cost of nuclear power in industrialised countries.

The application of these systems will continue to be held back while successive Australian governments continue to encourage the domestic uptake of fossil-fuel-based energy and the growth abroad of nuclear and coal-fired power.

---

Article from "Unclean, Unsafe & Unwanted - The Nuclear Industry Nightmare",
a special insert prepared for the June 1996 issue of Habitat,
magazine of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Chernobyl photos - Greenpeace/Shirley.

---

Back to the SEA-US Front Page

Copyright © SEA-US 1997-99

Before any more non-ideological nuclear sites are "moved" let me just say this. I have written to the "New Order" Liberal member for Bega and posed this question:

"Wednesday, 17 January 2007 12.56 pm.

Dear Sir,

As the Liberal State Representative for Bega, N.S.W. would you be able to give me your attitude to nuclear reactors being built in your electorate?

You are aware of my opinion of same but, as a New South Welshman of the Bega electorate, I consider that you must represent me.

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Yours fraternally.

And to the Federal representative for Eden-Monaro - Mr. Gary Nairn Wednesday 17 January 2007 1.03 pm.

Dear Sir,

I have not yet received a reply to my Email asking that you investigate whether or not the U.S. military will be using Depleted Uranium weapons in the "Sabre" war games to be held in Shoalwater Bay, Queensland later this year.

Would you also please advise as to whether you support or oppose the Federal Government's plans for Nuclear Reactors in Australia with special emphasis on your Eden-Monaro electorate?

After all, you do speak for us and your attitude could be crucial to the nuclear proliferation of our Nation.

Hoping to hear from  you soon.

Yours fraternally.

I have asked any fair dinkum contributors, of any political persuasion, to email or write to their Federal Liberal representatives and ask them what is their personal attitude to NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA.

"ITS TIME" to stop thinking of yourself as an individual and think of "what you can do for your country" before it is too late.

The anti-nuclear reactor policies of every other recognised political party has been already stated, however, a "get me an answer from Parliament would be appreciated" - however improbable.

"Its Time" to take back Australia.

NE OUBLIE.

Can anyone assist me in learning the "moved" web site of the Nuclear information under www.sea-us.org.au/

I have been so convinced by the integrity of this site that I have been writing various exposes' in webdiary.

Today, I can only achieve the message that "Sea-Us.Org.au/" has moved.

Can anyone tell me where?

And why did they move or, were they pushed?

Keep looking over your shoulder.  There is more pain to come.

The Australian Weapons Connections

As it became harder to sell uranium on glutted markets, Australia watered-down its safeguards. Before signing uranium contracts Germany, Japan and South Korea insist on freedom to isolate plutonium from the spent-fuel. In order to sell its uranium Australia consents to this.

Said a Commissioner of the U.S. National Regulatory Commission: "A nation with a designed and fabricated weapon could fuel it with diverted plutonium in less time than detecting and reporting it might take". ⁽⁷⁾

Keeping track of plutonium isolated from Australia's uranium is next to impossible. For what it is worth the Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) follows transfers of uranium and plutonium from reports of IAEA inspections. It is nothing more than a paper chase. In 1988 leaked documents from the European Atomic Energy Agency revealed how safeguards are being breached. Scrap material was swapped for Australian yellowcake, which was 'reflagged' as being of United State's origin, then enriched to weapons grade-fuel and dispatched to France.

Revelations on reflagging forced the government to admit that ASO only kept track of an 'equivalence' of exported uranium and had no real knowledge of where it really ended up.

Our Uranium Customers Abet Proliferation

Australia supplies uranium to France and Germany which have strong nuclear links with countries they knew were developing a nuclear weapons capacity. France provides Israel with nuclear equipment for its nuclear industry involved with producing nuclear weapons. German firms assisted South Africa and Argentina to build enrichment plants capable of producing weapons-grade uranium. South Africa has given up its nuclear weapons. Other countries have not.

The construction by Germany of two reactors in Iran was interrupted by war in the region. In 1995 Russia contracted to complete the building of the reactors. The deal was vigorously opposed by the United States as opening the way for an Arab nation to build a bomb. This belies the claim that safeguards can be trusted.

France and Britain provided nuclear plant for Iraq to use in its effort to build nuclear weapons. A Pakistani scientist worked in a Netherland's enrichment plant in order to learn its design. European firms then acquired the essential components, sometimes on black markets, for Pakistan to build its own enrichment plant.

Australia suspended uranium shipments to France because of its nuclear testing in the Pacific. However, sales were resumed on the excuse that Australia needed the foreign earnings.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Every five years an international conference reviewed the NPT. The 1990 conference collapsed because the United States would not agree to the proposal by the non-nuclear weapons members for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

When the five major nuclear weapons nations signed the NPT in 1970 they committed themselves to work towards nuclear disarmament. Instead they kept on building more and more nuclear weapons. Only after political change in the Soviet Union, and the end of the cold war was any significant effort made towards nuclear disarmament.

Even so only a small fraction of existing stocks of the weapons have been dismantled. The reductions so far leave the world's arsenals holding enormous destructive power. In 1995 a UN Review Conference agreed to extend the NPT indefinitely. This was with an undertaking by the nuclear nations to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In a last minute effort before treaty negotiations began China and France undertook a program of underground weapons testing, a clear indication they intend to maintain their arsenals. A treaty banning all weapons tests was agreed to in1996. From now on nations will use computer simulations to develop their nuclear weapons.

There is still no firm commitment to nuclear disarmament nor to halt the production of plutonium. Nations like Japan and Germany are accumulating large stocks of plutonium. They have the industrial capacity to develop the rocketry for delivering weapons. The world's nuclear arsenals will only be abolished through people the world over vigorously protesting against the planning of genocidal nuclear war by the major nuclear powers. Until then some small nations feeling threatened will continue to pursue their nuclear ambitions through a nuclear power industry.

The Politics Of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

Come on Jay - lets read your contradiction of these authenticated documents - if you have any.l

 

 Ernest William, you must not have got the memo. Labor is not against selling uranium overseas. In fact they started the three mines policy. If Australian uranium was in the reactor at Chernobyl it would have been sent there under the nose of an Australian Labor government.

The Labor plan is to sell uranium to only those countries that have signed the NPT. But you basically state yourself this treaty is a load of crap. So you have to admit your entire post gives no alternative at all.

What was that about there being no truth?

Why doesn't somebody ask the man with the real nuclear connections in Washington  what's going on?  No doubt Alex would be happy to explain

Power and Weapons Connections

After mining the uranium mineral is refined to uranium oxide, called yellowcake. This has two forms of uranium: uranium-235 and uranium-238. Uranium-235 fissions (splits) readily. Its concentration in yellowcake is only 0.7 per cent. For the common reactor (light-water) yellowcake is enriched to 3 per cent uranium-235. To make bomb-grade fuel yellowcake is enriched to 90 per cent.

Before enrichment, yellowcake is converted to a volatile material called 'hex' (uranium hexafluoride). In the diffusion process hex vapour passes through thousands of membranes along a two kilometre tunnel. In the other process the vapour passes through hundreds of small ultra-high-speed centrifuges.

Centrifuge plants are compact and so readily concealed. They allow a country possessing a plant to switch quickly from the production of reactor-grade to bomb-grade fuel. Uranium is the key to nuclear weapons.

During the operation of a reactor, some uranium-238 is converted to plutonium-239. Periodically spent-fuel is removed from reactors and after storing for a year or more it can be treated in a reprocessing plant to recover the plutonium. One large reactor produces 250 kilograms of plutonium each year. Only 8 kilograms of plutonium (the size of a large orange) is needed for an explosion.

With so much plutonium around in the world today some has found its way on to a black market. An international ring dealing in 'red mercury' (code name for plutonium), has been uncovered in Germany and Italy.

 

Loopholes In The Safeguard System

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up to implement the United Nations 'Atoms for Peace' program. The IAEA operates the international safeguards system under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It took from 1953 to 1970 for a United Nations committee to conclude the NPT. Nations were more concerned with developing nuclear industry than with the effectiveness of safeguards. "...the UN committee had to act on the lowest common denominator principle" and differences on quite fundamental issues "had to be papered over by general clauses which effectively deferred them". ⁽¹⁾

The IAEA was assigned the task of inspecting civil nuclear plants of countries to ensure that the nuclear fuel was not diverted from them into nuclear weapons. The agency was also given the task of promoting the development of nuclear power. The two tasks - promoting nuclear power and preventing diversion of the fuel into weapons - have at times come into conflict. When this happens the IAEA has turned a blind eye to suspicious circumstances especially when the interests of the larger nuclear powers are involved.

Australia makes bi-lateral agreements with customers who pledge not to use the uranium, or plutonium formed from it, into nuclear weapons. Checking observance of such agreements becomes the responsibility of the IAEA which sends inspection teams to monitor the nuclear fuel in the customers' plants.

The 1976 Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry into the uranium industry reported an "absence of safeguards on source material [uranium]" and that the international safeguards system "may provide only an illusion of protection". ⁽²⁾

Safeguards have serious loopholes:

 

governments can withdraw from the NPT upon only 3 months' notice;

some enrichment and reprocessing plants are not safeguarded;

governments can specify country of origin of inspectors;

IAEA's primary aim is to promote, not hinder, nuclear industry;

rocket and bomb components are not safeguarded so that weapons can be fired days after diverting plutonium.

Countries like China, France and South Africa have agreed to ratify the NPT, after refusing to do so for many years. This development is welcome but it has to be remembered that a nation is free to withdraw, on grounds of national interest, at short notice.

In practice Australia's responsibility ends once its uranium is loaded on board ship. On this first leg of its travels the uranium is the responsibility of the ship's captain. Israel made the plutonium for its first nuclear weapons from 200 tonnes of uranium on a ship it hi-jacked in the Mediterranean.

First stop for Australia's uranium overseas is a plant which converts it to hex. Here it is mixed with other countries' uranium. From then on no one can say what is Australian uranium and what is not.

A plant manager describes how the uranium is "co-mingled on an accounting basis like dollars in a bank account. A certain amount goes in and a certain amount is credited coming out at the end". ⁽³⁾

At the enrichment stage the large plants are military. They are either not inspected by the IAEA or the inspection is cursory. A study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that: "Most of the world's enrichment plants are not now safeguarded and seem highly unlikely to come under IAEA safeguards for the foreseeable future". ⁽⁴⁾

Australian uranium exported to Finland and Sweden is enriched in Russia. An equivalent amount of enriched uranium is dispatched from Russia to customers in Australia's name, but some of the actual uranium will be mixed with Russian uranium. Some could have been in the core of the Chernobyl reactor when it exploded.

Mr. Justice Fox was the Presiding Commissioner at the Ranger Inquiry. He later served as Ambassador for Nuclear Disarmament. In 1980 he told an inquiry that: "Send uranium overseas, it is converted and enriched perhaps in different countries, mixed with uranium from different sources, put in a reactor, burned up, comes out as spent fuel, the elements of which may have many origins. If something is done against the agreement what can you do about it". ⁽⁵⁾

Roger Richter was an inspector in the IAEA. He told the U.S. Senate Foreign Affairs Committee that: "Since the entire reactor can be emptied within days, you as an inspector, face the fact that by the time you arrive to verify the declared inventory of fuel elements, which power the reactor, all the evidence of illicit irradiations [to obtain plutonium] could be covered up. . ⁽⁶⁾

"You will try to forget that you have been party to a very misleading process"

End of quote.

COMMENT:  To those who bother to read these enlightening documents - were you aware of even a modicum of this information?

Did you know that Countries who signed the Non Proliferation Treaty can withdraw with just 3 months notice?  What value is the signature of any Nation these days?

Did you know that Israel made the Plutonium for its first Nuclear Weapons from a ship that it hijacked in the Mediterranean?

Did you know that Australian uranium sent overseas is converted to hex - then it is mixed with other countries uranium so that no one knows what is Australian or not?  But Howard and Downer claim to be demanding "rock solid, iron clad" guarantees? Fair dinkum.

How about the Australian uranium which is exported to Finland and Sweden and after being enriched in Russia it is mixed with an equal amount of Russian uranium and despatched under Australia's name? Why wasn't Howard told?  What power has his guarantees?

And the Howard "New Order" Liberals claim to be responsible Global citizens?

If you care about the rest of your life and the entire future of your generations - at least Email your Federal Liberal candidate and insist on an answer as to her/his personal opinion on Howard's intention of a Nuclear Australia.

Be sure that the policies of the U.S. franchised Howard nuclear plan will certainly affect each an every person living in Australia.

There is no truth - only the powers that be - so change the "powers".

The Uranium Connection To Nuclear Weapons

See also - "Uranium Mining, Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Tests"

After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, scientists claimed that atomic fission (splitting of the atom) offered an ideal source of energy. Fission of the 'peaceful atom' promised clean, cheap and abundant energy.

The scientists proclaimed they now had the power to liberate the world's poor from age-old drudgery and poverty. Even as these Japanese cities lay in ruins, and radiation victims lay dying, the horrific destructive power of the bombs were overshadowed by a world vision of energy abundance.

Atoms For Peace

In 1953, US President Eisenhower launched an 'Atoms for Peace' program in the United Nations. The program was applauded by world leaders of all political hues.

President Eisenhower declared: "It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of soldiers; it must be put into the hands of those who know how to strip it of its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace".

But how genuine were Eisenhower's sentiments, so enthusiastically chorused by other world leaders, for peaceful atomic energy?

How much was the promised abundance designed to deflect attention away from proliferation of weapons?

Unfortunately, national priorities were starkly military. The first reactor produced plutonium for weapons. The first power reactor propelled a naval submarine and was only later adapted to civil use. By the end of the 1950s hundreds of nuclear explosives had been fired by the United States, the Soviet Union and other major powers. Only after worldwide protest over the radioactive fallout did nations agree, in 1963, to a Partial Test-Ban Treaty against open air testing

Since then about 1300 explosions have been fired underground. In 1993 the nuclear nations, apart from China and France, agreed to a moratorium on further testing. France joined the moratorium a year later but in 1995 resumed testing and aroused condemnation and protest across the Pacific and around the world.

In 1950 non-government bodies called a World Conference in Defence of Peace in Stockholm. The conference launched a 'Ban the Bomb' appeal to the United Nations. Over 500 million people around the world signed the appeal. Although people vigorously opposed nuclear weapons they generally clung to the hope of enjoying the benefit of the peaceful atom while banishing the warlike atom.

But as nuclear weapons proliferated people began to understand the unbreakable connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

In 1976 the famous oceanographer, Jacques Costeau, told the United Nations: "human society is too diverse, national passions too strong, human aggression too deep-seated for peaceful and warlike atoms to stay divorced for too long. We cannot embrace one while abhorring the other; we must learn, if we want to live at all, to live without both".

Power and Weapons Connections.

ACCIDENTS, TERRORISM AND SABOTAGE.

The failure to seriously address the vulnerability of nuclear reactors to sabotage or terrorism resulting in catastrophic radiation emergencies suggests the report's authors were not interested in detailing the less savoury potentialities of nuclear electricity generation.  Failure to do so is a case of profound bias and intellectual neglect.

It is grossly inadequate to simply assert the unassailability of 'modern' reactors.  There is as yet no practical experience with most new reactors designs, which must therefore be regarded as unproven and at this stage, theoretical.  Serious and meaningful examination of the risks of building multiple new nuclear reactors around Australia would include modeled projections of meltdown scenarios in vicinity of the reactors either from accident or sabotage.  Human error can not be ruled out of the risks posed by this industry.  The near miss of a core meltdown and catastrophic release of radioactivity at Wappenfall in Sweden this year highlights that these risks are not specific to particular reactor designs or settings.  Contrary to the impression given by the report, there have been not one or two serious nuclear reactor accidents, but a total of seven incidents, involving different types of reactors in different countries, including the US, Canada and UK, where breach of the reactor vessel have occurred.

In several key areas there are biased and blinkered references to Chernobyl data.  A 'balanced' assessment would refer to the multitude of scientific data available which authoritatively contradicts the IAEA material.  Selective reporting does not provide either 'a factual base' or 'an analytical framework' for discussion:  It gives a whitewash to a complex and controversial subject.

COMMUNITY IMPACT:

In 'Looking ahead' [p.8] the authors refer to the importance of 'community involvement', not 'community agreement'.  This is in contradistinction to recognised world's best practice.  There is also no acknowledgement that 'community involvement' post Harrisburg and post-Chernobyl brought the nuclear industry to its knees in the US and Western Europe.  There is an implicit assumption that the community will not resist imposition of nuclear power in Australia [witness the restraints on uranium mining over the past decade, the failure to resolve waste management, the rejection of the Jervis Bay reactor].

This draft report fails in these ways to investigate and state the full implications of nuclear power industry in Australia and globally.  Furthermore, it should not be allowed to take the place of a comprehensive inquiry into future energy management in Australia in the context of global warming and nuclear proliferation, the two greatest threats to all humans and our total planetary system.

The Medical Association for Prevention of War therefore finds that the UMPNER draft report is a made-to-order green light for a massive expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia.  The draft report demonstrates a cavalier disregard for the inevitable detrimental impact on human health resulting from the spread of nuclear weapons, accumulation of radioactive waste, the appalling lost opportunities in energy efficiency, conservation, and the development and deployment of benign, sustainable and renewable energy technologies.

Yours sincerely.

End of quote and series.

COMMENT:  The Howard "New Order" Liberal government has every intention of going ahead with the policy of nuclear proliferation devised by the U.S.

Whether this murderous and callously promoted "Business venture" goes ahead or not, will be decided at the next federal election.

It is to be hoped that all Australians remember that the Howard government can not be trusted as their record clearly demonstrates.

Send an Email to your Federal Liberal candidate and see if you even get an answer.

NE OUBLIE.

It may be put on the back-burner by the venal media but, it is there and it is dangerous - so Caveat Emptor.

NE OUBLIE.

"NUCLEAR WASTE

The report admits that "no country has yet implemented permanent underground disposal of high level waste...several countries are now proceeding with well developed and thoroughly researched plans for deep geological disposal of high level radioactive waste" (p5)  It fails to identify that the longest planned site, Yucca Mountain in the US, which despite 20 years and US$9 billion expenditure, has still not been able to guarantee its safety as a long-term nuclear waste disposal site.  A license application has not been submitted, it is unclear that a license would ever be granted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman admitted in Feb 2006 that no date could be estimated for when the repository might open.  And even without new nuclear reactor construction, by 2012 the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the US will exceed the 63,000 MT statutory limit for Yucca Mountain.

No country currently plans to have a repository in operation before 2020 at the very earliest, and all repository programs have encountered serous problems.

If the cost of disposal is included in the overall economics of nuclear electricity as the draft report says it must, then it would have to allow for potentially huge cost blowouts for management of waste, if the current world experience is to be a guide.  However by stating that this long term solution would not need to be in place until 2050, it passes the responsibility on to our descendants to manage the poisonous legacy of our energy profligate generation.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY:

The report asserts 'good management' in Australian nuclear industry to date.  This is clear misrepresentation in view of hundreds of instances of mismanagement (leaks, spills, contamination, regulatory breaches) at the existing Ranger, Roxby and Beverly uranium mining operations and a failure to monitor health impacts in local populations despite known distribution of radio-toxins into the habitat and food chain.

The draft is silent on known and quantified increased risks to workers in nuclear industry.  It does not take into consideration the multiple reported and controversial clusters of childhood cancers and congenital malformations in vicinity of nuclear reactors, while advocating for 25 new reactors to be built close to (ie within tens of kilometers as stated by DR Switkowski in launching the draft report) population centres.

Further the draft report displays no consideration of the well-documented capacity of LLIR to injure chromosomes and the long-term genetic implications, including gene pool effects and generational toxicity.

The authors have failed to consider the community health implications of building 25 nuclear reactors in our communities.  As well as the enormous financial burden, we can anticipate 'necessary' increases in the power of police and other surveillance authorities, in addition to the potential for restrictions on the publics right-to-know and resist imposition.

End of quote Mk. 3.

COMMENT:  Having personally seen the Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities after the Atomic Bombs, I can easily imagine the results of the American "Mini-Nukes", their Cluster bombs and their Depleted Uranium weapons (bullets, shells, bombs and tanks etc.)

I cannot even get a reply from the Eden-Monaro "New Order" Liberal, Gary Nairn, regarding whether the Americans will use ANY DU during their "practice invasion" of the Australian mainland at Shoalwater Bay Queensland later this year.

IF this question has not been even asked, then this is just another case of a disgraceful abdication of responsibility by the Howard Liberals.

 These weapons, created to be used in foreign countries (for obvious reasons) perform the double task of killing people immediately, plus continuing to kill for as long as they remain in established communities.

Since the Americans, (we believe, via their FTA with Howard), must be consulted when Australian public assets are up for sale, would that include the sites for the nuclear reactors which the "New Order" intends to allow?

And - whoever is the "New Order" Liberal MP in your electorate - do they support Howard's unilateral decision?

There is no truth - only the powers that be.

Miners are exposed to the hazards of ionising radiation emitted by radon and radioactive dust. As we learn more about ionising radiation it is found to be ever so much more dangerous than previously thought.

Mining sites become scarred landscapes.

After mining ceases, tailings dams become hills of fine sand-like solids. These retain 80 per cent of the radioactivity of the ore body. Thorium-230 in tailings decays into radium-226 which in turn decays into radon-222, a gas which spreads over the region.

Radioactive radium, dust and radon contaminate the air, land and waterways. Neighbourhoods suffer cancer and birth defects. The radioactive hazards of tailings at old uranium mining sites will persist for over 100,000 years.

Uranium hexafluoride (called 'hex') is used for enrichment because it is a gas at low temperatures. Radioactive gases are emitted during its production.

'Hex' is hazardous both as a chemical and for its radioactivity. An accident in transport could be catastrophic. Exposure to 'hex' can cause serious kidney damage. Plant producing reactor grade uranium (3% uranium-235) can also produce the highly enriched weapons-grade uranium (over 90% uranium-235). A country with an enrichment plant has the means to produce nuclear weapons within a very short time.

Radioactive gases are emitted to the atmosphere.

Workers are exposed to radioactive dusts. The health hazards are greatly increased when 'mixed oxide fuel' of plutonium and uranium (MOX) is used in power reactors.

Every 12 months one-third of fuel rods in a reactor are replaced. The spent-fuel taken from the reactor is stored in cooling ponds at reactor sites until it loses much of its heat and radioactivity (initially equivalent to 5 million kgs of radium). The spent-fuel contains about 250 kg plutonium.

Radioactive water and gases are released routinely. There are many accidental releases. Accidents at Windscale and Three Mile Island caused health problems from iodine-131 in populations in downwind regions.

The accident at Chernobyl contaminated vast food-producing areas and affected the health of about four million people causing immune deficiencies ('Chernobyl AIDS') and cancer. It is now widely accepted there will be more 'Chernobyls'.

Reactors must be decommissioned. Demolition can cost as much as building a reactor. The radioactive remains must be stored and guarded for hundreds of years.

 

 Millions of litres of radioactive water pour daily into the sea from the world's two commercial plants at Sellafield in Britain and Cap la Hague in France. Krypton-85 and other gaseous wastes are released from these plants.

At Sellafield 500 kilograms of plutonium and 40 other radionuclides, have been released into the Irish Sea. Fish caught in the local waters are radioactive. Sellafield's plutonium is found in the far-away Arctic ice. People in the region have thousands of times more plutonium in their body than other people. Childhood cancers are six times higher than the national average.

Plutonium is uneconomic as a fuel. As a way of disposing of reactor waste reprocessing creates greater environmental problems than storing spent-fuel directly. The real incentive of several nations is undoubtedly to hold stocks of plutonium ready to use in nuclear weapons.

Comment:  Although you couldn't have meant it this way Jay - but this established research by non-financially affected scientists IS INDEED WORTHWHILE LOOKING AT.

I will write to our State and Federal "New Order" Liberals to see if they have looked at it instead of blindly following the Howard U.S. demands.

"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing".

NE OUBLIE.

Source: www.sea-us.org.au/

Nuclear Fuel Cycle.

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

The generation of nuclear energy involves a succession of operations. These operations are : uranium mining, conversion and enrichment of the uranium to produce fuel for reactors, fission of uranium in reactors to liberate heat, the generation of electricity by steam turbines, reprocessing of spent fuel to isolate plutonium and 'unburned' uranium and storing the radioactive wastes. This sequence of operations is referred to as the nuclear fuel cycle.

 

The nuclear energy system is called a cycle because the plutonium and unused uranium isolated by reprocessing the wastes at the 'back end' of the cycle can be returned to the 'front end' as fuel.

Although the operations of the nuclear industry can be represented as a cycle, it's various operations are not carried out in one place but are scattered all over the world. This means movement of radioactive cargoes along highways and sea lanes and even air routes.

Australia's only involvement is mining and refining of uranium at the 'front end' of the cycle and the operation of small nuclear research reactor facilities at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO - they are currently undertaking an EIS for a new, larger research reactor). All political parties (including the Liberal Party since 1994) have declared policies against the building of nuclear power reactors in Australia. However, ANSTO has worked with the aim of Australia storing our uranium customers' high-level radioactive wastes.

End of quote Mk. 4.  Sorry about the diagram.

 

 

---

Comment:  Interesting to note that the "Old Liberals" (including Howard) had declared policies against the building of nuclear power reactors in Australia?  What changed his mind?  Climate change? You have to be kidding.

 

As we "move forward on the wrong fork in the road", beware of any promises or "never ever" guarantees of the "New Order" Liberals.

Clearly, this "Nuclear Australia" is becoming a major issue and I cannot help but think that Howard did not intend it to be that way.  ( I wish Justin would give us another lead to the front end of WD).

Howard's Liberals have a system to "mention something, like Industrial Relations" and then have you forget it by the time the election takes place.

The Karl Rove policies of confuse the people with continuous problems, which remain unsolved, then go on to something more interesting.  Right?

Margo and the Management Team are giving us the opportunity to reach some Australians as to the dangers of the "Howard more to do programme".

NE OUBLIE.

Ernest William nuclear energy is a reasonable and realistic option and Australia should look at it. And they are. The Labor party will to. After the next election.

Arguing about nuclear weapons seems rather pointless. There are already enough out there to kill the entire world over a hundred times. Nuclear energy is something that Australia can have an advantage in and should look at it very closely.

Twenty years ago this would be no hope. Times have changed and so have the people. Your concern is merely the help a scare campaign may give Labor.

I would be guessing little. But the fear of them putting up taxes and cutting middle class welfare will be plenty of help to the other mob. Lefties and money is always a lethal combination.

The Global Nuclear History
With Australia's Key Involvement

---

Year	Event
1895	Wilhelm Roentgen discovers X-rays.
1896	Henry Becquerel discovers radioactivity
1898	Marie and Pierre Curie isolate radioactive elements polonium and radium.
1905	Albert Einstein theorises that matter can convert to energy.
1911	Ernest Rutherford proposes that atoms have a nucleus with electrons in orbit.
1919	Ernest Rutherford discovers the proton.
1932	James Chadwick discovers the neutron, which can penetrate the atom.
1938	Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman split uranium atoms. Frederick Joliot-Curie shows extra neutrons released when atoms split, making possible a chain reaction.
1941	Manhattan Project for production of A-bomb started in USA.
1942	USSR commences its A-bomb development.
1945	A-bomb Trinity exploded at Alamogordo, USA. A-bombs Little Boy and Fat Boy destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively) in Japan.
1949	A-bomb exploded by USSR.
1950	Stockholm 'ban the bomb' petition signed by 500 million people all over the world.
1952	H-bomb exploded by USA on Eniwetak, Marshall Islands.
1953	USSR explodes H-bomb.
1954	Nuclear electricity supplied to town in USSR for first time. Major new phase of uranium mining started in Australia. The first commercial nuclear power station begins operation at Shippingport in the USA, with a capacity of 60 MW. However, the facility was owned by the US Navy and was from the same design as that for the world's first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus.
1955	The nuclear reactor at Calder Hall in the UK was connected to the national electricity grid.
1957	Major nuclear reactor accident at Windscale, UK. Catastrophic nuclear waste storage explosion in USSR.
1959	Early citizens protest on waste dumping in Massachusetts waters.
1963	Partial Test Ban Treaty banning atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
1967	Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibiting transfer of nuclear technology for weapons but encouraging transfer of nuclear power technology. Treaty of Tlateloco creating a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in South America.
1972	French atmospheric nuclear explosions in Polynesian islands provoke protest and boycott on French trade in Australia.
1974	First large citizen occupation by 30,000 people of nuclear reactor site at Whyl, West Germany.
1976	National one-day trade union strike against Mary Kathleen uranium mine. Australian anti-nuclear movement begins the first of many demonstrations against uranium mining.
1978	People's Nuclear-Free Pacific Conference at Panape, Micronesia, adopts a People's Treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, nuclear power and nuclear wastes from the Pacific Ocean.
1979	Major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in Pennsylvania, USA.
1981	First new uranium mines for a decade begin operations in Northern Territory. The new Ranger mine exports its first uranium after a blockade for seven weeks on the Darwin Wharf.
1982	First occupation of a uranium mine at Honeymoon by Coalition For A Nuclear-Free Australia.
1983	Labour government swept to power and introduces the Three-Named Mines Uranium Policy. Major community protest actions and blockades at Roxby Downs.
1984	Major community protest actions and blockades continue at Roxby Downs.
1986	Massive reactor explosion at Chernobyl, former USSR, leaving hundreds of thousands exposed to radioactive gases across the European continent.
1988	Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia begins operation.
1995	French resume underground nuclear weapons tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls in French Polynesia, subject to world-wide condemnation.
1996	Liberal Coalition comes to power and proceeds with a policy of expansion of uranium mining throughout Australia.
1998	India detonate 5 underground nuclear bombs. Pakistan, in retaliation to India's tests, detonate 6 nuclear bombs.

---

Timeline compiled from "The Nuclear Environment - A Handbook on Nuclear Power
for Schools and the Community" (1983 - A MAUM/FoE Publication),

IF this is just another Howard diversion and intended as another  "wedge" and divide our people, it might just be a sensitive enough subject to "hoist his government by their own petard".

The absence of nonsensical, pointless remarks by Jay and Alan may well indicate that the "New Order" might want the subject dropped?

We have all been advised of the edited and scripted "draft" report of the John Howard designed "Nuclear Review" - now let us look at the other side.  MAPW response Mk. 1.

Source:  www.mapw.org.au

MAPW response to the draft report of the Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Review.

Date: 12 December 2006.

Submission sent to:  Email umpner@pmc.gov.au

The Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) P.O. Box 1379 Carlton Vic. 3053.

Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Secretariat.  c/- Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 3-5 National Circuit.  Barton ACT 2600.

Dear Secretariat

Re: Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review draft report.

The Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) provides this feedback on the draft report released by Dr. Ziggy Switkowski on 21 November 2006.   MAPW presented a detailed submission to Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) in August 2006, outlining our considerable concerns about the health, safety and proliferation aspects of the inquiry.

Despite its self-congratulatory and solipsistic claim to providing 'a factual base' and 'an analytical framework' for considering the role of nuclear power in Australia's energy future, UMPNER is inherently partisan and depressingly narrow in perspective.  The authors begin from the assumption that there is little if any role for energy conservation and efficient use of electricity. This failure to explore and implement habitat-friendly behaviours is precisely the kind of uncritical thinking which drives the climate change catastrophe.

Within the report there are many examples of intrinsic and habitual bias.  An example is the (optimistic) assertion that 25 nuclear reactors could give an 8 - 18% reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (page 2).  However the reports authors neglect to mention the resulting generation of plutonium, a weapons fuel.  Those 25 reactors working over 30 years (from 2020 to 2050) would produce approximately 150 tonnes of Pu-239, enough for thousands of nuclear weapons.

If the adoption of multiple nuclear reactors were to effect a greenhouse gas reduction of 8 - 18% of national emissions by 2050 as asserted in the draft report, evaluation of a limitation on nuclear power's benefit will help to guide public policy decisions on electric generation technologies.  The draft report notes that it is only the nuclear reaction that is greenhouse neutral.  Greater emphasis must be given in the summary of the final report to the CO2 emissions associated with the mining and processing of uranium, with the construction and decommissioning of the power plant, and with the associated transport fuel.

End of Mk 1 quote.

On Friday 31 December 2004, I wrote in the Canberra Times HYS an article titled "U.S. bases in Australia?"  (id=84336). And I quote:

Despite claims to the contrary on Y/S, the Howard media seems to be "feeding us the bad medicine" about U.S. military "presence" in Australia - a little at a time.

The euphemisms "Joint" and "exercises" which the Howard government uses re Shoalwater Bay Queensland, really mean a relatively small number of Australians will join with "tens of thousands" of U.S. military in full-scale WAR GAMES.

The Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, visited Australia "to thank the Howard government for their support in Iraq".

Really? Must have a lot of spare time on his hands - he could have phoned or written - but I guess there was much more to the visit than reported?

Howard even interrupted his summer vacation to greet and be photographed with the General. Of course.

The General was kind enough to "let it be known that Washington expects a good deal more from its junior partner" and; "...revealed that he had proposed the establishment of a U.S. training and logistics base in northern Aujstralia and reiterated the need for the Australian military to maintain its 'interoperability' with American forces.

Scott Burchill reported that "...in the 1950s the CIA coined the term "blowback" to refer to "the unintended and unexpected negative consequences of covert special operations that have been kept secret from the American people and, in most cases, from their elected representatives".

And (especially for Alan Dalling) "For the U.S., a classic example of "blowback" occurred in Iran after the CIA overthrew the demoratically [sic] elected PM Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and reinstalled the Shah".  [And in Australia in 1975].

These War Games on Australian soil are probably intended to test for a "blowback" in a planned seaborne invasion of some reasonably defenceless country - hence the high profile computerisation of the "non-existent" defenders?

In light of Howard's servile attitude to the Bush regime and that he predicates unprovoked, pre-emptive strikes - why wouldn't the Americans demand a "staging" Base in Australia?

If the American military/corporate want it they may already have it – or they will again come out with blatant undiplomatic and arrogant support for Howard's Liberals as they did in 2004.

Control the government and you control the people – democracy or no.

In Australia today there is no truth – just the powers that be.

Depleted Uranium - Metal of Dishonor

What is depleted uranium? Read 'Metal of Dishonor' to see what is behind the headlines.

January 9 2001 - the breaking news in Europe of troops from Italy, Belgium, Spain and Portugal who served in the Balkans dying of leukemia has reawakened interest in the dangers posed by depleted-uranium weapons.

In April 1999, the International Action Center published the second edition of a book of essays and lectures on depleted uranium. Its title is Metal of Dishonor: Depleted Uranium. The first edition had been published in 1997......

In addition to exposing the deadly duplicity of the Department of Defense, the book documents the genocide of Native Americans and Iraqis by military radiation, the connection between depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, the underestimated dangers from low-level radiation, the legal ramifications of DU Production and Use, and the growing movement against DU.

The Pentagon used DU weapons in Iraq in 1991, in Bosnia in 1995 and in Yugoslavia-especially in Kosovo-in 1999 in large enough amounts to have a significant impact on the environment. Besides endangering occupation troops it of course is a major environmental threat to the population of those regions.

Of the 697,000 US troops who served in the Gulf, some 130,000 have reported medical problems ranging from respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, low blood pressure, and birth defects among their newborn children.

During the Gulf War [first] munitions and armor made with Depleted Uranium were used for the first time in combat history. Over 940,000 30- millimeter uranium tipped bullets and "more than 14,000 large caliber DU rounds were consumed during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. (U.S. AEPI Report 1994). These largely untested weapons were used indiscriminately throughout the siege of Iraq with no concern for the health and environmental consequences of their use. Between 300 and 800 tons of DU bullets are now scattered on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait.

The Pentagon now admits to having fired over 18,000 DU shells in Bosnia and over 31,000 such shells in Kosovo.

Up to 70% of the depleted uranium within these weapons aerosolizes on impact and as radioactive dust it is easily ingested. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people, both victims of war and combat soldiers, have suffered the effects of exposure to these hightly toxic, radioactive weapons.

It was reported after the Gulf War 1 that Saddam Hussein had collected all obvious DU residue remaining in Iraq from the shelling and bombing. He had it transported to southern Iraq to protect his people.

Could this be where the US and Howard have sent our troops?

I would have thought that Howard and his ministers would find it difficult but, not impossible, to explain away this nuclear threat to our military. That is, if they have been informed.

So, even if I am the only one, I will continue to request that the "New Order" Liberal member for Eden-Monaro, Mr. Gary Nairn, explain whether or not DU will be used in Shoalwater Bay - Australia.

Since I consider that the Americans have been criminally responsible for the exposure of their troops, what do you think they care about ours?

In fact, what do you think the Howard Liberals care?

Any Eden-Monaro residents who have relations in the services should also ask Mr. Nairn. See if you can get an answer.

I have unsuccessfully asked the Liberal Member for Eden-Monaro, Mr. Gary Nairn, for an answer as to whether the US - or even our own military - will be using any depleted uranium during their combined exercises in Shoalwater Bay Queensland later this year.

The Labor representative for the area, Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia) made an important speech to Federal Parliament on 12 August 2004. Database House Hansard.

Due to the length of the impassioned speech, I will post it in two parts. That way, those who do not care, or don't want to know, can ignore the posts.:

"It has always been my belief that the most important job of a member of parliament is to be the voice of his or her community in the parliament. I am here as the voice of the people of Central Queensland and as a link between them and the government. Right now the people of Central Queensland, particularly those living on the Capricorn Coast, have a message for the Howard government about the plans it has for Shoalwater Bay. On their behalf I am asking the Minister for Defence for some answers.

Shoalwater Bay, just 80 kilometres north of the city of Rockampton is a special part of my electorate for a number of reasons. To many Central Queenslanders lucky enough to get out on the water and explore it, Shoalwater Bay is a spectacular natural treasure with miles of beaches and clear blue waters reaching out to the Great Barrier Reef. We are also well aware of Shoalwater Bay's other purpose and the important role it plays in the defence of Australia. The Shoalwater Bay training area has been managed by the Australian Defence Force since 1965. It is recognised as one of Australia's premier defence training areas, encompassing 270, hectares of land and 180,000 hectares of marine reserve.

(Then a paragraph concerning the combined exercises and the economic gain to Rockhampton that the soldiers provide during those war games)

It is because we have always been so supportive of these joint exercises in the past that the people of Central Queensland are so angry and concerned about the treatment they have received from the defence minister since his announcement on 8 July this year that the US and Australian governments had agreed to develop a joint combined training centre. The minister's statement identified Shoalwater Bay as a key part of that plan. The minister's statement refers to Shoalwater Bay as one of the sites in Australia to be 'further developed' and able to be linked with American facilities', he said:

Our initial priority will be to upgrade the Shoalwater Bay facility to support the first of the Talisman Sabre series of biennial joint training exercises that will be undertaken in 2007....

He went on:

Talisman Sabre will see tens of thousands of Australian and US military personnel undertake land, sea and air training in operations such as full-scale amphibious landing, airstrike bomb runs using live munitions as well as high-tech computer simulated scenarios.

 If you will pardon the pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that news hit Central Queensland like a bombshell. Shoalwater Bay is in our backyard, and here was the Australian government making plans for it with no consideration or acknowledgement of what it might mean for the local community and the fact that we might have liked to be consulted on its impact before hearing about it on the nightly news.

The minister's statement aroused significant concern throughout the Central Queensland community - concern which only grew as the weeks passed and still no answers came from Minister Hill to clarify exactly what was planned for Shoalwater Bay. What about the local roads surrounding Shoalwater Bay? Will Livingstone Shire ratepayers continue to foot the bill for their maintenance and repair following exercises, or does the government plan to pay its fair share? What about the significant environmental value of Shoalwater Bay - are there guarantees that it will be protected? Does this mean troops will be permanently based in Central Queensland?" End of quote Mk 1.

Comment: Well might we say that "Howard has a lot more work to do"!

This is the people's representative for Capricornia electorate who, obviously because the person is Labor, was completely ignored during the whole of dealings with the Americans.

Would the "New Order" seriously suggest that if the representative for the area was a Liberal, they too would have been ignored?

If so - the incompetence and arrogance of the government is at least consistent in its abdication of responsibility.

If not - then the sycophants' robot-like loyalty to the "New Order" denies those people the right to be heard.

More to come in Mk 2.

Nuclear Waste: The Unsolvable Problem

To some extent all uses of energy affect the environment adversely. But over the centuries, waterwheels grinding grain, windmills pumping water, and animals ploughing land did little environmental damage.

The damage really began in the seventeenth century with the invention of the steam engine and mining coal to fuel it. Growing volumes of waste effluent from burning coal, and later the other fossil fuels, oil and gas, have brought us to the environmental crisis facing us today.

Now in the twentieth century forests die from acid rain, marine life is blighted by oil spills and urban populations suffer health problems from the smog created by commuter traffic.

Cleaner burning of fossil fuels could do a lot to reduce the pollution. However, we now discover that the seemingly innocuous carbon dioxide from burning vast quantities of fossil fuels has been warming our globe since the industrial revolution. Though far from the only culprit carbon dioxide is the major offender.

Uranium is a fuel that releases no carbon dioxide and so it seems a promising candidate to displace fossil fuels at least to generate electricity.

That nuclear power has serious problems is now generally acknowledged even by its advocates. However, climate change can be expected to bring great social disruption; so why not solve the problems of an energy source which emits no carbon dioxide.

The nuclear problem arousing most public concern is the disposal of radioactive waste. Wherever waste disposal sites are chosen local opposition has forced the plans to be cancelled.

Radioactive wastes are produced at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. The wastes are stored as liquids or solids.

When considering the nature of nuclear wastes it is helpful to see the nuclear fuel cycle as having a 'front end' production of the fuel for the nuclear reactor and a 'back end' storing and reprocessing the spent-fuel.

The only political party of influence which advocates taking nuclear waste is the Liberal Party at Federal, State and Territory levels.

Labor advocates that the nations who buy and use our uranium should firstly be signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and should then resolve their own waste problem.

The position of the "New Order" Liberals has already been made obvious by Howard's US policies regarding Australia taking the world's nuclear waste.

He says we must do this if we are to sell uranium. Fair dinkum.

This from a person who claims caveat emptor? "Buyer beware" without "duty of care" for the Australian people? Struth!

His attempt to use South Australia failed due to the Federal Court case, but who knows what the High Court might decide?

The Northern Territory already has a “nuclear waste management facility" - intended by Howard only for our purpose? You have to be kidding.

Let's hear from the Federal, State and Territory Liberals regarding this issue.

NE OUBLIE.

The Howard "New Order" government has an outstanding record of pampering to and serving the Corporations, especially the US military/corporate.

So, when he put nuclear power on the radar my initial thought was that it was a typical diversion away from the disasters of his incompetent and dishonest Ministers (AWB scandal et al).

I still believe that Howard will do as the US tells him i.e. foreign policies and the "outsourcing" of the benefits of our natural resources.

Of all his scams, the one on "whether or not" he will provide uranium to India - a nuclear power which is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty - is just a furphy. The US has made that decision for him.

Where does that put the signature of Australia on behalf of our people, when it comes to the trust of world leaders?

The Bush Administration has probably tarnished the American image throughout the world by betraying any agreement or policy which does not suit its ferocious appetite for the world's resources, 50% of which it already uses.

So I wondered what was in India that would benefit the Americans breaking their word yet again - which naturally means Howard will do the same?

While searching the net for the Prof. Suzuki warnings against nuclear power, I found an interesting site. It discussed the finding of Janes in 1998 which noted the following:

BREAKTHROUGH BRINGS INDIA CLOSER TO AN H-BOMB ARSENAL.

Nestled between the nuclear capabilities of China and the nuclear aspirations of Pakistan, India would seem to be in an unenviable strategic position. As T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj reports, however, a breakthrough by Indian scientists in the economical production of tritium may have tipped the strategic scales in New Delhi's favour.

The importance of tritium as a strategic material in the creation of thermonuclear weaponry, given the insignificance of its other uses, cannot be overstressed.

Its importance becomes even more apparent when one considers the major leap from the ability to manufacture fission weaponry to the capacity to build a thermonuclear weapon like a hydrogen bomb.

It is within this context that the pioneering work in extracting highly enriched tritium conducted by scientists at India's Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) assumes significance.

In this area at least, Indian scientists have reason to cock a snook at the USA.

So – Pakistan, Israel, and India are all nuclear powers. We are told that a significant number of the Muslim extremists come from Pakistan.

So – even the thought of a hydrogen bomb being produced by the Indian nation, the Americans, the Russians, and by whoever has the technology, is a threat of terrorism at its worst. But the scaremongering Howard terrorist threat does not apply there. Why is that?

They all need uranium - as one of the largest suppliers, Howard's Australia is providing enormous wealth for the foreign corporations in our country. Dangerous; stupid; irresponsible but; just business.

I refer to my previous article about the dangers of the nuclear industry.

I also recall – as a very young man – that Menzies was called "Pig iron Bob" for his sale of that commodity to a reckless nation called Japan.

The use of that commodity became legendary after 1939.

NE OUBLIE.

UNCLEAN, UNSAFE and UNWANTED.

With the election of the Howard federal government in March 1996, there has been an unprecendented [sic] push to expand Australia's uranium mining and other nuclear activities, regardless of the well documented truths of these industries on our own soil and overseas.

Our involvement in the mining and export of uranium creates a radioactive legacy at every mine site and fuels radioactive impacts around the world.

Nuclear Power, once hoped to be safe and 'too cheap to meter', has proven to be dirty, dangerous and expensive, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons poses its most ominous threat in history.

Radioactive waste and nuclear weapons are both creations of the uranium industry and the nuclear fuel cycle.

As the debate over uranium mining heats up we must ensure that these basic facts are not lost.

The Australian uranium industry is: UNCLEAN, UNSAFE and UNWANTED.

Australian Uranium : Unearthing Disaster.

In the five decades since the creation of the nuclear industry, vast sums of money have been spent to convince the public that nuclear technology is both necessary and desirable. The industry still lacks credibility in a number of key areas:

Nuclear Energy is not clean - All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to reprocessing, contribute to the creation of long-lived radioactive wastes.

Nuclear energy is not cheap - in many places renewable energy sources are as cheap or significantly cheaper than nuclear energy. When the electricity utilities were privatised in the United Kingdom the market refused to purchase or support nuclear utilities.

Nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming - Extensive studies have shown that each dollar invested in end-use energy efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon that a dollar invested in nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not safe - Nuclear reactors routinely release radiation into the surrounding environment. Incidents, accidents, releases and leaks plague the industry in every country where it operates.

Uranium mining is not safe - According to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, uranium mining has been responsible for the largest collective exposure of workers to radiation. One estimate puts the number of workers who have died of lung cancer and silicosis due to mining and milling alone at 20,000. It is widely agreed that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.

The threat posed by nuclear weapons is not over - More than 40,000 nuclear warheads still exist. Nuclear proliferation continues and there is a growing global trade in nuclear smuggling.

The problem of nuclear waste have not been solved - Despite industry assurances, nuclear waste remains a very real and very potent danger. They need to be isolated from people and the wider environment for up to tens or even hundred of thousands of years.

I will continue to try to find the Professor Suzuki’s speech at the National Press Club some time ago. It produced a lot of unknown disasters in the Canadian nuclear industry.

There is no truth - just the powers that be.

The Bush administration has betrayed the U.S. signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty with his "do as I say, not as I do" policy.  This betrayal will be factored into law by his signature regarding the supply of American made Nuclear Reactors and fuel to India.

I am not aware who signed the Treaty on behalf of the American people but, whoever it was, the value of that commitment is only as good as the civilised society which produced it.  To fail in that situation diminishes the honour of the people Bush claims to represent and will severely damage the already tarnished reputation of the U.S.

Closer to home we have a servile Howard government which has repeatedly stated that whatever the Bush Administration does, Australia will support it.

Ergo, Howard will supply India with Uranium irrespective of our National honour being dragged down with that of his controllers.

Already, Howard has given the world the clear indication that we belong to the U.S.- that we carry out political interference in the South Pacific, with Military and Police forces, for and on behalf of the U.S.

This is not and never was, intended to protect Australia.

Howard's "New Order" taxpayer funded ads to build a "Reserve Military" with permanent Officers, is a duplicate of the U.S. policy of sending Reservists, Home Guard and even "Green Card" holders to do the dirty work in foreign countries.

It is only a matter of time before some courageous Journalist will release the facts that all arms of our Military are overstretched already. 

The Liberals' move to increase Reservists is not to defend our Nation and our people, but to maintain an American controlled interest in these growing Pacific Islanders and the natural wealth they may have.

Meanwhile, there is virtually no "Border protection" for our country.  Our resources are concentrated on the protection of the Corporations in the South Pacific.

An effective Coast Guard of Ships and Planes should be the objective of any government that sincerely wants to protect this vast country of ours.  NOT clapped out helicopters and 30 year old tanks that do nothing for us but help the U.S. to get rid of them for profit.

At the moment we depend on the Indonesians to prevent the "boat people" and "people smugglers" for political purposes.  In return we can expect Howard to say "there is nothing we can do about the release of the Leader of the Indonesian Jemiah Islamiyah". Fair dinkum. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Can any of the "New Order" Liberals give me an example of Howard, Downer or Ruddock doing anything to help Australian citizens?

There is no truth - only the powers that be.

Angela Ryan I am a little disappointed you did not see fit to answer my question about what should be done with exisisting spent nuclear material.

What I find amazing about this whole issue of "waste disposal" is the complete head in the sand approach. No doubt the world could find some poor out of the way third world nation to dump the stuff open slather. Some place so desperate for cash they will doing anything. Or it can just continue sending it to the bottom of the ocean and leaving it out of sight and mind. 

Of course this would be immoral but what other alternatives is there?

No, what I find the biggest pity is that people such as the greens are not on board trying to make a disposal industry as safe as possible. You know like ensuring this stuff is handled correctly and exactly what is stored is all recorded and accounted for so that future generations know exactly what they are dealing with and where it can be found.

Yes, a damn pity and another classic example of short term politics winning and sending the problem on to later generations.

Thanks Ernest and Angela for assisting with my education.

Apologies, Ernest. I went straight to the Lucas Heights page of the Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service site yesterday and was put off at the thought of reading a whole PhD thesis. But now that I've looked more thoroughly I see there's quite a bit that provides basic explanations. I should have thought of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War too, as the doctor in the house was a member for a while. Well worth a read, both.

Hope your daughter has done as well as she wanted in her HSC, Angela. You all seem to have survived the process! We've got two in Year 12 next year so it will be an interesting time. And here I take a small moment to marvel that we have WD and the rest of the Net these days to help fill in educational deficiencies!

Thanks and Merry Christmas to all!

Angela Ryan: "Welcome to Australia, was one of the last regions on earth less contaminated than elsewhere, but now about to become the world's waste dump."

There is already a existing waste dump slap bang in the middle of Australia. Nobody lives anywhere near it or is planning on living anywhere near it. Not for a few thousand years at least.

Nobody is talking about "dumping" the stuff in a Tasmanian rain forest.

Australia produces a lot of the world's uranium. And a hell of a lot of it is already out there. Some would argue, and I would be amongst them, that we have a little bit of a duty to be good world citizens. Solving a little problem with uranium storage may go a small way to doing this. Also reasonable terms may also be reached making it a bonus for being good world citizens.

Now at the moment there is really no where to put this stuff. Including our own spent material. I guess one can take the option of pretending there is no problem and it will thus all go away. Perhaps the world can continue dumping it at the bottom of the ocean. I suppose if you cannot see it, it must mean it does not exist?

Yes a fear campaign on this subject will likely work. And for the small political gain some might think it worth it. And anyway it can just be another problem we can burden future generations with. Maybe they will have some answers?

Let's all pretend we can survive with windmills and living in mud huts.

Ernest, I know so little about nuclear physics that I can't engage in this debate very meaningfully. That's why I limited myself to providing a link to the ANSTO side of the story, trying to present it neutrally without expressing any opinions. I was astounded that we should be exporting waste which is why I looked it up. The cynic in me wonders if the "powers that be" are relying on outrage like my own and have timed this shipment to ease in the acceptance of a waste repository.

My own views at present are that we should leave as much radioactive material as possible in the ground, and concentrate on other sources (geo-thermal, wave/tide as well as conservation, wind and solar) for energy. I would prefer also that we sold very little uranium. But there is much in modern medicine that relies on radio-active isotopes, so there is a small part of the nuclear industry I support. The responsible thing seems to be to manufacture isotopes using the uranium we have and find some place locally to keep the waste. I am opposed both to "leasing" arrangements, where we would sell uranium and accept the waste back, and the development of nuclear power generation in Australia.

"Our" side (that might be presumptuous, but so be it) needs very vocal and very knowledgeable spokespeople right now. They need to be able to both debate the science credibly with the pro-nuclear experts and explain the debate patiently to the general public, many of whom are physics-ally challenged like myself. For example, I have no idea what laser enrichment is and how it differs from what already goes on at Lucas Heights. I am not inclined to try to find out, not because I don't care, but because it seems like it would take up a lot of time. In this I suspect I represent many, many others. Is there a "Nuclear physics for dummies" web-site you know of which gives both sides of the debates?

Ernest, this media release from ANSTO contains the official answers to some of your questions.

Ever since my experience in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1949, I remember that my shipmates and I were in "shock and awe" at the destruction of humanity caused by the introduction of the "Nuclear Age".

The transport of spent nuclear rods in "containers", aboard trucks, passing through our suburbs from Lucas Heights to an American ship is an indication of what will come - IF the Howardists win again.

Bearing in mind that Lucas Heights has been exposed as an
American SILEX enterprise in Laser Uranium Enrichment since Howard signed the agreement in late 1996 and, that the Liberals have established a "Nuclear Waste Facility" in the Northern Territory, - why are "spent nuclear rods" being transported to America? And through Australian suburbs?

Could it be that the transport is of "enriched Uranium by laser"?

It is not satisfactory to say that the Councils have been warned that it will happen BUT, they will not be advised of the month, day or time of the event. That is simply patronising for political purposes.

This is like the Howard government's intention to create Nuclear Reactors in Australian BUT, they will NOT disclose where they will be.  Fair dinkum Australia - wake up.

I have always been against deception by any form of government. Even if they were not paid, there is no excuse.

While I was disenchanted by most of the Menzies' ideological change in the Australian political landscape, he maintained a dignity of duty of care in that he provided the Australian people with a referendum on his pet "Communist under the bed" Onus of proof legislation.

Had the "other side of the road" Howard done that with his "Sedition laws" one could have had a modicum of respect for him.

But that is digressing.

The issue is Justin, that I personally would like an explanation of these "spent nuclear rods" being sent to the U.S., the reason and what will happen with them after?

We were told that France was accepting them previously and then - after processing - were returned to Australia.  For what? And planted where? And why the different process with the U.S.?

Perhaps Justin, our citizens deserve complete honesty from the government that some of us have elected.  And without the most abused Howardist deception - "in the National Interest".  Fair dinkum.

There is no truth in the federal government - only the powers that be.

 

There has been many informed opinions on this dangerous issue and others - as there should be. But, lets get real.

The intention of the Howard New Order Liberals is to give the US military/corporate the right to build nuclear reactors in Australia. They will be there for the enrichment of the uranium as a secondary objective to the enrichment of the energy suppliers. And a prime target for any of the terrorists which Howard's servility to the US continues to create.

To all of the former, the Labor Party says NO if they are elected.

Howard's Liberals will provide one or more nuclear waste dumps in Australia for the use of all who will pay the private enterprise that he will allow to control them.

To which the Labor Party says NO if Australia elects them.

The pattern of deceit on this matter goes back several years with the Cheney enterprises building a rickety railroad for that purpose.

So, isn't the real issue on this matter either to accept the inevitable nuclearising of Australia for foreign benefit, should we elect Howard’s "New Order" Liberals again - OR - to push aside this diversion (which would be claimed as a mandate by Howard's mob) and vote in a Labor government for the rebirth of Australian values and security?

I will add to the Web a separate item regarding the way Americans really view the burying of nuclear waste in their part of the world.

NE OUBLIE.