Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

“America today is upgrading its missiles and warheads to make them more accurate and destructive, and building a national missile defence system. This raises the possibility that in future the US could destroy most of China's missiles in their silos, and the rest after they were launched.”

How can the US ask any other country to participate in nuclear disarmament while it continues to upgrade its nuclear weapons?

China will continue to develop its nuclear capability. If any country wants to be a major player in world affairs it will need to match the US. No wonder other countries are developing nuclear weapons.

The only way we will see a world free of nuclear weapons is to put pressure on the US to stop increasing its nuclear capability. We don’t want mutually assured destruction!   

On the day that Messrs Walker, Morgan and De Crespigny registered their nuclear power plant company, Alexander was quoted in the Victor Harbor Times as stating that "There is no plan to build a nuclear power station anywhere in the whole of Australia, least of all in Victor Harbor."

Was Downer kept in the dark by such three senior business and political figures (not to mention maybe his boss as well) of such an imminent implementation of the the nuclear agenda?  Or was he informed and lying?   For a former prospective leader of the IAEA, neither scenario is a good one.

Chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Amori Lovins, says here:

Existing technologies for more efficient end-use can save 75 Percent or at an average cost of around 1 cent per kilowatt-hour--cheaper than running a coal or nuclear power plant, let alone building one. Scores of utilities have demonstrated and implemented at scale, rapid, large, predictable, and extremely cheap "negawatts" (saved electricity). California's per-capita use of electricity has been flat for 30 years while per-capita real income rose 79 percent. Firms like DuPont, Dow, and IBM are saving billions of dollars by cutting energy intensity, sometimes as fast as 6-8 percent a year. Nuclear power is unnecessary and uneconomic, so we needn't debate its safety. As retirements of aging plants overwhelm construction, global capacity and output will decline (as they did slightly in 2006). Most independent analysts doubt the private capital market will finance any new nuclear plants. Even in the United States, where new subsidies would roughly repay the next six units' entire capital cost, Standard & Poor's said this wouldn't materially improve the builders' credit ratings. I expect this experiment will be like defibrillating a corpse: It'll jump, but it won't revive.

Who is going to pay for Howard’s wet dream of a nuclear future for Australia? Taxpayers, no doubt, we can reduce our C02 emissions by introducing legislation to cut emissions for transport, electrical products and building codes. We could use the money that would be wasted on building more power stations to encourage the tax payer to use our resources more efficiently. We could lead the world in reducing our wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, and develop new products and industries that reduce C02 emissions.

"Private enterprise would drive Australia's nuclear power industry, Prime Minister John Howard revealed yesterday."

That's how Lincoln Wright opens an aptly titled article for The Sunday Herald Sun today - Markets to drive nuclear PM.

Howard has ruled out a referendum on nuclear power. He says this year's federal election would provide a mandate.

Bad luck if you're for continued Coaltion government, but against letting loose businessmen keen to maximise profits when putting a nuclear power plant in your backyard.

Prime Minister John Howard came out of the Victorian Liberal Party state council meeting in Melbourne today and said:

I am announcing today a new strategy for the future development of uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia ...

In light of the significance of global climate, change and as the world's largest holder of uranium reserves, Australia has a clear responsibility to develop its uranium resources in a sustainable way ...

The Government's next step will be to repeal commonwealth legislation prohibiting nuclear activities, including the relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This will be addressed soon ...

Senator Chris Evans came out of the Labor National Conference in Sydney today and said:

Federal Labor removed its current ban on new uranium mines while reinvigorating safeguards on its use and strengthening the safety measures for workers in the uranium industry in Australia.

Labor will actively pursue more effective international export control regimes through the IAEA and tighter controls on the transfer of nuclear technology.

The motion moved by Kevin Rudd commits Labor to reinvigorating diplomatic efforts towards nuclear disarmament and the responsible use of nuclear technology.

A Labor Government will ensure that Australian uranium is only sold under the strictest conditions and safeguards.

State Governments maintain their right to approve or reject any proposed new mines.

Unlike the Howard Government, Labor remains opposed to the development of a nuclear industry in Australia.

Labor remains opposed to the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia and vigorously opposes the ocean-dumping of radioactive waste.

The challenge for Australia is to tackle climate change through an energy mix of gas, clean coal and renewables. Labor’s policy will deliver that cleaner and safe energy mix by building on our natural resource advantages.

On Friday 11 May, Atomic John's nuclear lobby front man Ziggy Switkowski will travel to one of Melbourne's outer suburbs to deliver the keynote speech at luncheon. It'll cost $80 to attend and try to put a question to Ziggy.

In contrast Dr Helen Caldicott, the internationally renowned writer, Nobel Prize nominee and advocate of safe alternate energy, spoke recently at an event in a Town Hall in another Melbourne suburb. Admission was free.

Wondering whether Howard and his business government want an uranium enrichment industry in Australia?

Imogen Zethoven writing for The Wilderness Society's blog last week:

The Federal Government quietly released a document in late March which says it will consider any proposals for ‘downstream processing of uranium’ in Australia.

The Government had been silent on establishing an enrichment industry in Australia, after the release of the draft Switkowski report last November. The Switkowski report looked at the potential for developing a full nuclear industry in Australia, from uranium mining to enrichment, nuclear power and nuclear waste dumps.

But on 29 March, the Government released its response to a report by the House of Representatives entitled: Australia’s uranium – Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world.

The House of Representatives report called on the Government to ‘encourage’ downstream processing.

Note that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, has called for a 5 year moratorium on building enrichment plants, and our government (Honest John did say he'd lead a government "for all of us") has failed to acknowledge that call in its rush to support proposals for building enrichment plants.

And Howard's our government certainly hasn't done much to communicate its decision to us shareholders voters these past weeks.  Kind of crimps our opportunity to engage in some 'downstream processing' of this decision by way of debate, doesn't it?

It's not like we haven't paid millions for the 'information' we're told we need to know before. Where's the advertising campaign to explain what this government believes are the merits of making the move toward an local enrichment industry?

Where's Sir Alex on our TV sets explaining how he and the Boss propose to avoid Australia becoming a nuclear proliferation risk? 

Did the Boss appear on 2UE this week to announce his our government's decision to pursue this dangerous business?

Or will it be like the extreme workplace rule changes that we were only informed about after the election?

The media is attempting to spin the Nuclear attitude of the Labor Party to that of the "New Order" by mudding the waters re uranium exporting.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Howard assists foreign governments to execute and torture Australian citizens with his personal excuse of "it is a matter for those governments. We can't tell them what to do."

Then, with equal gusto and dishonesty, he says that Australia MUST at least receive back the radioactive waste from the countries buying our uranium because "it is our responsibility since we sold it to them"!

Whatever happened to "it is a matter for those governments"? Is the radioactive waste more important than our citizens?

Can anyone imagine how Howard's ideas could possibly be administered?  The uranium is not necessarily used by the country that buys it - who would trust any country to send back ONLY the waste which they have processed from our uranium? We should not even be contemplating the possibility. 

Even the thought should send shivers down our spines. The "New Order" intends to make Australia the quarry for Nuclear proliferation and a dump for the resultant dangerous radioactive materials which, no other country wants. Struth.

So, like so many of his wedges and diversions, he is deceiving the Australian people with an indignant stance of "fairness" of which not one of his Party can claim as part of their policies.

There is no sure way that Nuclear Reactors can be made safe with certainty.  It is a "quick fix method of profiteering" while claiming to be aiming at "cheap" nuclear energy to resist Climate Change which the "New Order" doesn't even believe in.

Recently, The Age reported that BHP Billiton was "red-faced as radioactive samples turn up outside camp": 

BHP Billiton has been embarrassed by the shock discovery of three kilograms of radioactive material outside a contractor's accommodation camp at its Olympic Dam mine - the world's biggest uranium deposit - in the far north of South Australia.

A box containing 10 jars of uranium oxide, the main ore for uranium, was found at an undisclosed location around the camp.

And - It was not known yesterday whether the incident was theft, a slip-up or something more sinister.  "Inquiries are under way to identify the person or persons responsible", BHP said.

Were all precautions taken?  Apparently not.

The "New Order" conservative method of "cutting corners and taking chances on safety for profit reasons" is commonplace in major industries.

Deregulation of business obligations is a dangerous conservative policy which flies in the face of true Liberalism.

When the warmongering Republican Conservatives accused J.F. Kennedy of being a "Liberal" - he replied:

"If by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reaction, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "liberal", then I am proud to be a liberal".

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in that statement that compares with the ultra-conservative arrogant attitude of the Howard "New Order".

When Australians consider voting before the end of this year - they should consider whether the Howard "New Order" really deserves the title of "Liberal". It is currently a misnomer for Howard's fascists.

There is no truth - just the powers of the establishment.

NE OUBLIE.

A few weeks on and there is still no reporting in any Corporate media outlets of the addition of Australia to the SIPRI list. 

We are listed as one of the Countries of Strategic Nuclear Concern, but judging by the papers I read when visiting Sydney it seems the much more important concerns have been Joey Johns' retirement from a rugby code that was ruined by Rupert and another of his interests ... The Daily Telegraph's obsession with overstating the real impact of all that mud they keep trying to sling at Kevin Rudd. 

Oh ... hang on ... the real impact seems to be Mr Rudd seeking his rite of passage from the Mogul.

I wonder if we should worry that Rupert Mogul wants to see our country in the uranium enrichment game?

Some people may still not be aware of what is really going on in the devious minds of the Howard government.

It seems that every time a Howard Minister commits some sort of crime or incompetence they are promoted to somewhere else.

Examples are Alston (Communications to Ireland) Reith to EU Bank, Downer (AWB scam to U.N?) Vaile (AWB scandal then Deputy P.M.) and the one currently concerning me is the umpteenth Minister of Defence Robert Hill, who helped plan the Shoalwater Bay invasions practice for this year, and then was promoted to the U.N. (All out of “harm's way” so to speak.

So I continue to ask about Depleted Uranium in that pristineBayin Queensland - not because my Wife and I go to that area every year - but as an Australian, I resent the pollution of our Nation for profit - anyone's profit.

So I repeat.......

Are our Military exposed to Depleted Uranium?

Submitted by Ernest William ... on January 10, 2007 - 11:10am.

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 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 armour made with Depleted Uranium were used for the first time in combat history. Over 940,000 30- millimetre uranium tipped bullets and “more than 14,000 large calibre 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 Iraqand 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.

There is no truth - as long as the Corporations run this country.

Try not voting for Peter Reith's top man Peter Hendy when he gets his way with increasing the paid of Work-no-Choices!

Well said Craig and Richard.

The factual information with reasonable questions that you have posted should, I hope, wake up the contributors to this forum to the Howard government's support for Nuclear proliferation (by the U.S.)

Some time ago I wrote an article on the Lucas Heights "Research" Reactor and the SILEX sytem agreement that Howard signed in September 1996.  I wrote to Gary Nairn, the Liberal Representative for Eden-Monaro but he would not comment.

Nor would he even hazard a guess as to whether the U.S. will use Depleted Uranium weapons in the upcoming war games, (invasion style) in Shoalwater Bay Queensland.

So I have also e-mailed Kirsten Livermore, the Federal Labor representative for that district, asking if she knows anything about the overall intentions of the "games" including whether D.U. will be used to pollute that pristine area. The Australian "participant" in allowing these games Mr. Robert Hill, has already been awarded for lying to the Senate. 

And now we have another Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson - how many is that in 11 years?

One thing is for sure.  Howard's Liberal government intends to increase our Nuclear involvement, certainly with uranium sales to all countries that the Bush Administration gives the OK to.

The possibility of further involvement with; uranium sales to India (direct or indirect) the use of the SILEX enrichment process  developed at Lucas Heights and; stretching the borders of U.S. Nuclear capability, will only cause even more instability in the world.

Howard's foreign policy, servile to the U.S. like - "tell me what you want" - is so obvious, I wonder at the attitude of any Australian who thinks that is what they voted for.

At least the research and information of you two men should have some effect on the apathy of voters at the next Federal election.

Regardless of the smoke and mirrors of the venal media, the Labor policy on these matters is diametrically opposed to that of Bush/Howard and is "Australia First".

The Howard government has only been able to keep sensitive information from us with the complicity of the Corporation's media. 

Wasn't it fun to hear Howard say that it is not right to use taxpayer's funds to "sell" the draconian Industrial Relations laws - when he boasted of using 55 million of our money on that very issue already.

There is no truth - just the lies of the "New Order".

NE OUBLIE.

G'day Craig Rowley, and thanks for this timely article.

Although not a Luddite, I have misgivings about nuclear energy; to my knowledge the waste problem has yet to find even a half-way acceptable solution, and then there's proliferation. Still, these concerns could be addressed - and pigs may well fly, if the 'leadership' were ever to assume the responsibilities it daily abrogates.

Another problem with nuclear and our wide-brown is that although there is some discussion, we the sheople® will never be listened to; our democracy being Oh, so toadally® f**ked as it Oh, so obviously is.

Still not the real problem; but it looks to me like the great Satan, more properly the cabal - err, ooops! (forbidden word? - ahhh; the US 'illuminati' - err, ooops again); how about: the murdering bunch of felons who have seized control of the US - yes, that's better, those hideous crooks are trying to set up a monopoly on Uranium, all the better to bolster the kleptocratic US empire, and - worst - are roping us in Aus into it, although 'roping' is not too exact either; our local 'leaders' appearing to be stampeding Aus into the filthy clutches (aka 'death embrace') of the US. (That rope could find a use after a Nuremberg-style trial of B, B & H.)

The nub: the real problem with this story is that it not just assumes, it will drive ever 'more of the same,' i.e. profligate energy use by ever more people. Whether we use oil, coal or nuclear, ever more energy use will enable ever more resource-gobbling - and rush us into the greedastrophe® ever faster.

And Q: just how smart is that? A: not. Not on your Nelly, in fact.

-=*=-

And the credit given where credit due is to Ernest William Graham (g'day) who first mentioned Silex 'in here,' after recalling it from the good old HYS days. Ernest also cited his (unnamed) source, a lady. There were pro-pushed paradigm trolls active then as now, and one is tempted to ask such: "What's in it for them?" IMHO (always 'only,' as usual), if our situation had anything to recommend it, 'conservatism' might have a place. But with the place falling apart round our ears, we drastically need a way out, instead of repeatedly, consistently, making things worse.

My suggestion: "Engines full speed astern!"

These engines, ever more, more, more of everything, including and especially the number of people, must be moved to 'negative growth.' ASAP. And a final challenge to the trolls; what makes you think you won't be going down with the ship with all the rest of us poor sheople, hmmm? Just what is it that makes you so special, eh?

This will take a little digesting.  As to the push, I thought everyone saw that one coming.

[extract]

India is turning to overseas nuclear-reactor builders after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh doubled the nation’s 2020 capacity target from an initial 20,000 mw. India’s homegrown atomic power programme won’t cope with the stepped-up construction plan, Mr Jain said.He added the programme was also limited because of a uranium shortage caused by the international embargo on sales of the reactor fuel. Once sanctions end, supplies of enriched uranium will be included in contracts to install reactors.

Financial Express, 28/5/06 

What's the bet that despite Downer's reiterations that Australia won't be selling uranium to Inda, GE will?  All part of the presumably noble service of ensuring that India doesn't use the nuclear fuel to nuke the Pakis.

How much of our uranium export trade will be comprised of GE subcontracts?

Aside: the reactor proposed by Walker, De Crespigny and Morgan is a GE job, isn't it?  GEe, I wonder what it will be designed to do- power Paramatta's lightbulbs?  Try enriching our yellowcake before it hits the boats to Bombay.

Now we're on that list, there's a potential for ugly problems to be raised.  For example, what if someone decides that defence of such possible terrorist assets can't be handled by Australian authorities?  Sure, the B-2s can provide air-to-ground coverage from the US base in Guam, and the AWD's will be able to sync in with the Missile Shield to counter a ballistic attack, but how many M-1 tanks are we going to need to defend Roxby from the Muslim Hordes that might invade to take fuel for their WMDs? Or will they march straight through to have a go at Antarctica?

We may need military assistance.