Julie Bishop's nuclear waste dump in earthquake zone

July 18, 2007 - The Northern Territory site recently nominated for a national nuclear waste facility by the Federal government is near one of the nation's earthquake hotspots. Muckaty Station is about 120km north of Tennant Creek - one of the most seismologically active areas in Australia...

There have been 239 earthquakes in that area in the past decade and 1298 earthquakes since 1988. Tennant Creek had a 6.3 quake in 1988, according to Geoscience Australia, which tore up the town.

Anti-nuclear waste dump campaigners have long condemned the nomination of Muckaty Station as a site.

The Environment Centre NT says it's "political expediency rather than proper scientific evaluation in terms of siting a waste dump," she said. Seismologists say the frequent quakes are due to a fault line running through the area. "The quakes are frequent, due to a weak fault-line running through the area," Geoscience Australia said. Two small quakes have hit the Tennant Creek area in the past three weeks.

The proposed nuclear waste dump site has been opposed by environmentalists, the NT Government and traditional owners. Despite overwhelming community opposition, the Federal Government seems determined to let nothing stand in its way to procure a site in the Northern Territory to dump its radioactive waste.

ASEN* say that despite giving an "absolute categorical assurance" that the NT would not be targeted for a Commonwealth dump, in June 2005 the Howard government announced that three defence sites in the NT would be assessed for suitability. All sites have people living within 10 kilometres. None of the sites were short listed when the Federal Government undertook a scientific study to find a site.

At a media conference in June 2005, then Science Minister Brendan Nelson expressed the reasoning behind targeting the NT, asking "why on earth can't people in the middle of nowhere have low level and intermediate level waste?"

The Northern Land Council has offered overt support for the NT dump proposal. Yet, according to ASEN* many Elders have spoken out to strongly oppose a dump on their own country, and have travelled to NT parliament and interstate to voice their concerns.

The NLC also supported Science Minister Julie Bishop’s recent amendments to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which further restrict opportunities for public input into site selection for the dump. The changes to the legislation mean that a nomination of a site by a Land Council will no longer require:

+ consultation with the traditional owners
+ that the nomination be understood by the traditional owners
+ that the traditional owners have consented as a group
+ that any community that may be affected has been consulted and had adequate opportunity to express its views

The proposed changes also remove the right of any group to appeal site nomination on the grounds of procedural fairness.

The risk of transporting radioactive waste is also major concern for communities living along potential routes.

NUCLEAR PLOY
Recently, Dr Helen Caldicott, an anti-nuclear activist of more than 20 years, said she feared Prime Minister John Howard would turn Australia into the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste. She said the takeover of Aboriginal land titles, part of the government's assault on Indigenous communities, is a ruse to clear the way for the dumping of waste in remote areas.

"The land grab from the Aborigines is actually about uranium and nuclear waste," Dr Caldicott said. "It is obvious - you don't take land away from people just because their children are being sexually abused." Dr Caldicott said Australia should reject nuclear power, ban uranium mining and concentrate on developing renewable energies such as wind, solar and hot rocks.

She said the health consequences of uranium mining, nuclear power and nuclear power plants were serious and would induce epidemics of disease, malignancy and deformity that would be experienced for generations.

"Australia is in great danger of becoming a major nuclear nation now," she said. "I think it is very, very, very dangerous medically. I am worried that people making decisions do not understand medicine or genetics. They (the government) are being pushed by the economy and wealthy corporations, like Western Mining and BHP Billiton, who seem to have no regard for the health and well-being of this generation and all future generations."

KE07

*Terrorising the Territory with Toxic Trash - ASEN, jan07.

Sources:
Herald Sun
Terrorising the Territory with Toxic Trash - ASEN
NUCLEAR DUMP DANGEROUS FOR TERRITORY - Foe
Geoscience Australia
National Indigenous Times: NT takeover ploy for nuclear waste dump
Wikinews - Opposing_a_nuclear_waste_dump_in_the_Northern_Territory
Australian government paves way for nuclear waste dump in Northern Territory

WA Police "brutal" attack on peaceful protesters over nuke dump

From the newswire: On Friday 13th June 2007, around 40 people from across Australia converged in Subiaco, to deliver a letter to Federal Science minister Julie Bishop over her proposed NT nuclear waste dump. During the peaceful action, witnesses say WA Police used "brutal" and "excessive force" to break up the action. Two anonymous witnesses, both veterans of dozens of local NVDA demonstrations, told Perth Indymedia on Friday afternoon that the police action was "horrific", the "worst behaviour by members of the WA Police they had ever seen at any protest in Perth..."


READ MORE: Pepper Spray and Batons Used at Bishop’s Office

After an initial discussion with the Minister outside her office, the group walked into the foyer to deliver their letter. As the group were asked to vacate, without warning police used batons and pepper spray to attack the campaigners inside the minister's office. Witnesses say one officer grabbed a woman by the hair before producing his baton and using it on random people.

Described by witnesses as "brutal" and "disgusting", officers targetted people with cameras including an elderly woman who was pushed to the ground. A young woman was pinned to the ground by an officer, her video camera seized and confiscated by police for evidence. It is understood five people were charged with disorderly conduct, obstructing police and assault - despite the excessive force sisplayed by police. Three people were hospitalised as many others were treated on the scene by paramedics.

The group, representing dozens of environmental and student organisations from around Australia, were delivering a letter to Ms Bishop requesting she visit the communities affected by her Nuclear waste dump.
A participant in the national action, Toby Lee, told corporate media that police launched an "unprovoked attack" on the congregation. "As I was leaving," he said, "I was directly sprayed with capsicum spray into my eyes 10 centimeters from my face without warning". Another activist, Natalie Wasley, told corporate media she was negotiating a peaceful exit with police officers as inside they began using their batons. Read More...

"We didn't get a chance to leave peacefully. The police just started pepper spraying people, hitting them with batons and throwing them to the floor. It was absolutely shameful." Ms Walsey denied the group provoked the violence. Protesters left the office with eyes streaming and burnt faces, after being struck with batons and pepper sprayed...

READ MORE/Comment...

BE THE MEDIA: Publish your media/got photos/video/audio...?

Interviews on Perth Indymedia Radio - Weds 7-8PM RTRFM 92.1

Australia not ready for nuclear; WA to ban uranium mining/power plants

June 5, 2007 - The head of ANSTO, Australia's peak nuclear science body, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, says Australians are not yet convinced of the need for a nuclear energy industry. He says building a nuclear energy industry in Australia would take at least 15 years to implement. Despite 50 years into the best funded development of any energy technology - nuclear energy is still beset with problems.

WA Premier Alan Carpenter has said the WA Government’s position is very clear: "we are against uranium mining and nuclear energy. I will do all I can to ensure WA remains free of nuclear power facilities."
Dr Ziggy Switkowski says building a nuclear energy industry in Australia would take at least 15 years to set up a regulatory regime, do the appropriate environmental checks and vendor selection process - "getting into the queue, ordering reactors and building them, which we know takes a number of years... 10 at the earliest, 15 more likely," he told ABC television.

Dr Switkowski - chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), reported to Prime Minister Howard last year on the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia. He also cast doubt on the effectiveness of a planned government advertising campaign to push nuclear power.

"It would be unprecedented to take a national community, such as we have in Australia, that starts out feeling wary about nuclear power and making them positive about nuclear power within a year or two," Dr Switkowski said. "This is a journey that countries usually take over several years and I think it will take more than one electoral cycle..."

As the nuclear power issue radiates across the country, some say Howard is deliberately diverting funds and attention away from real solutions - by insisting that Australia consider domestic nuclear power generation.

Mr Howard seems intent on pushing something currently illegal, inordinately expensive, reliant on massive government subsidies and far too slow to respond to the immediate challenges of climate change. Indeed, the Federal Government continues to force the issue of nuclear power into the States and Territories, having recently claimed it could override the States on the development of nuclear reactors.

However, the WA Premier says nuclear power stations will be banned in Western Australia under new legislation to be introduced. The Premier said the legislation would also include a referendum trigger if the Commonwealth Government ever tried to override the new State laws. Premier Carpenter said the "anti-nuclear legislation", to be introduced when Parliament resumes in June, would:

"prohibit the construction or operation of a nuclear facility in WA; prohibit the transportation of certain material to a nuclear facility site; and prohibit the connecting of nuclear generation works to an electricity transmission or distribution system..."

"To thwart any attempt by John Howard to override WA, there will be a trigger in the new laws which will see a referendum held if the Commonwealth tries to override the State’s anti-nuclear stance," he said. "“The people of WA will then be able to have their say on the issue if the Commonwealth moves to develop nuclear power facilities in this State. In other words, it could be at the Commonwealth’s political peril if they ever proceeded with such a move."

Mr Carpenter said the State Government is committed to developing natural gas, clean coal and renewable energy sources including geothermal, solar, wave and wind as future energy sources.

Elsewhere in Australia, the possibility of nuclear power is hindered. In Victoria the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 prohibits the construction or operation of any nuclear reactor, and consequential amendments to other Acts reinforce this. In NSW the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 is similar. In 2007 the Queensland government enacted the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2006, which is similar (but allows uranium mining).

Other countries using nuclear energy are discovering problems with the industry. In the USA, direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies.

In contrast, subsidies to wind/solar combined during the same period amounted to only $5.5 billion. During the first 15 years of development, nuclear subsidies amounted to $15.30 per kWh generated. The comparable figure for wind energy was 46 cents per kWh during its first 15 years of development.

Professor Ian Lowe - Australian Consevation Foundation President - says that despite being 50 years into the best funded development of any energy technology, nuclear energy is still beset with problems.

"Reactors go over budget by billions, decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that power stations are kept operating past their useful life, and there is still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no economic case for nuclear power," said Professor Lowe in 2005.

Dr Jim Green - national nuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth - says the problem of radioactive waste management is nowhere near resolution. "Not a single repository exists for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, which is produced at an annual rate of about 10,000 tonnes in nuclear power reactors worldwide," says Dr Green.

"Technologies exist to encapsulate or immobilise radionuclides to a greater or lesser degree, but encapsulated radioactive waste still represents a potential public health and environmental threat that will last for millennia," says Dr Green.

A recent study, conducted by a research team from Georgetown University, Stanford University and UC Berkeley, analysed the costs of electricity from existing US nuclear reactors. It reports that no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in nearly 30 years years, in part because they've proved to be poor investments, producing far more expensive electricity than originally promised.

The US nuclear industry provides a direct link to the perils of nuclear weapons. "During my eight years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program," says former US Vice President, Al Gore. In 2005, about 19 percent of U.S. electricity generation was produced by 104 nuclear reactors.

Neverhteless, renewable energy is a growing industry. According to Dr Jim Green, renewable energy, mostly hydroelectricity, already supplies 19 per cent of world electricity - compared to nuclear's 16 per cent.

"The share of renewables is increasing," he says, "while nuclear's share is decreasing. Wind power and solar power are growing by 20-30 per cent every year.
In 2004, renewable energy added nearly three times as much net generating capacity as nuclear power," says Dr Green. "In Australia, only 8 per cent of electricity is from renewable energy - down from 10 per cent in 1999."

SOURCES:
WA Premier Media Release
The Age
Sunday Times
The Australian
Lateline - ABC
UIC - Briefing Paper 44
ACF
Azom
Beyond Nuclear - PDFNuclear power: no solution to climate change

Secret NT nuke waste deal cuts into dreaming

May 29, 2007: Northern Territorians should feel let down by the consultation process for a nuclear waste site at Muckaty Station - eight kilometres from where people live at the station homestead. The Northern Land Council has nominated the site, 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek, as a national nuclear waste repository.

"Our dreamings cross right into that land where they want to put that dump...

If the Federal Government approves the site, the site's traditional owners will hand over control of the land for about 200 years and receive a one-off $12 million payment. Only a handful of people were consulted and the voices of the overwhelming majority are not being listened too.

The only way in which a modern government like the Howard Government should be addressing this issue is to ensure that it has the full consent of communities involved in every way when it comes to the location of a facility, like a radioactive waste dump.

This process has still got a very long way to travel and we haven't seen the details of what has actually been agreed between the NLC, the relevant traditional owners and the Minister - we've only got the reports that we've seen on the wire and heard on the radio.

The secretly negotiated deal has bitterly divided traditional owners of the 2241- square-kilometre Muckaty Station, where the Government wants to build a dump storing 5000 cubic metres of nuclear waste.

Bindi Jakamarra Martin, a Warlmanpa man from the Ngapa clan, said building the dump on a 1.5-square-kilometre would "poison our beautiful land" and "change our dreamings". "Our dreamings cross right into that land where they want to put that dump," he said.

The deal was revealed on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the landmark 1967 referendum granting Aboriginal citizenship rights. The agreement allows the Federal Government to take the Ngapa clan's land for up to 200 years to store nuclear waste from all the states and territories.

Truckloads of radioactive material would be driven from Sydney's Lucas Heights and Woomera in South Australia to the site, which is 10 kilometres from the busy Stuart Highway and eight kilometres from where people live at the station homestead.

Experts will now study the sparsely vegetated site to see if it is scientifically suitable to store nuclear waste.

The Muckaty deal has angered the Northern Territory Government, whose legislation against developing a dump in the territory can be overridden by Canberra. "This potential facility could compromise the social, cultural and traditional ties of Aboriginal people to their country," said Elliott McAdam, a minister in the NT Labor Government. Environmentalists have called on federal Science Minister Julie Bishop to reject the site.

A traditional owner of another site under consideration for a nuclear waste dump has questioned whether all residents of Muckaty Station agree with the nomination. Kathleen Martin from Mount Everard, north-west of Alice Springs, says there was some division over the proposal in the community.

"I'm asking, was that in agreeance with everybody on Muckaty?" she said. "Because the message that came down a couple of weeks ago was that the older people - the older men - had told some of the people there, you sell the land, you sell your soul."

Martin said they decided to vote against the dump after attending several meetings with the Northern Land Council and elders were taken to Sydney to tour Lucas Heights.

William Jakamarra Graham, another traditional owner, said: "We don't care about the money — $12 million is nothing to us. But we care about our land and what will happen to the children of the future. We don't want to leave them a nuclear dump."

Natalie Wasley from the Arid Lands Environement Centre, who has been campaigning against all of the sites proposed, says many of the traditional owners do not support the proposal. "I've spoken with a Ngapa elder this morning, Bindi Martin from the Muckaty area, and he said he still has strong opposition to the dump proposal," she said. "I believe this is a view held by other elders as well.

"I think the Science Minister Julie Bishop will have a hard time showing that there is consent within the Ngapa group let alone the whole Muckaty community for this nomination for the waste dump."

Dave Sweeney, nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Muckaty Station was not selected on a scientific basis and turning it into a dump would be "environmentally irresponsible and socially divisive".

The Northern Land Council says it has all 70 traditional owners' support.

SOURCES:
The Age
ABC NEWS
ABC
The Age

Students of Sustainabilty Conference 2007 - Murdoch Uni - Get some!

Students of Sustainabilty Conference 2007 - Respect Nyoongar Country

SoS_07 - July 9-15, 2007 - Students of Sustainability (SoS) is the largest student-run environment based conference in Australia. The next SoS convergence will happen July 2007 in Perth, Western Australia at Murdoch University...
Check out the website:
http://studentsofsustainability.org

So, what is SoS? Each year SoS offers an amazing opportunity for students, activists, academics, environment and Indigenous groups, and members of the wider community from around Australia to come together to share and gain knowledge, skills and information on environmental and social justice issues.

Please feel free to get involved with the organisation of SoS 2007.

We are all students of sustainability!

FIND OUT MORE:
http://studentsofsustainability.org

Leave that fucking shit in the ground

March 30, 2007 - International nuclear expert is visiting Canberra this week to warn Australians about the dangerous impact of the waste produced by uranium mining. Kevin Kamps, from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, says the waste produced by uranium mines in the US has had a great impact on the community.

Mr Kamps says the search for storage sites for nuclear waste often targets the living areas of traditional inhabitants.

"It's having some of the greatest public health and environmental impacts because of the carelessness with which it's disposed of," he said...
"So it's just dumped on the surface and it blows with the wind and it flows with the water and that is unfortunately the state of practice with uranium mining."

Washington-based Kevin Kamps, who is on a national tour with the Wilderness Society, said the public's primary concern should be where the governments planned to store nuclear waste.

He said US experience showed reactors, generally located near cities, had been forced to store toxic waste while the argument of where to build a national dump continued.

Mr Kamps also says the search for storage sites for nuclear waste often targets the living areas of traditional inhabitants.

Last year the Australian federal Government passed legislation that could mean a nuclear waste facility will go ahead at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory, even though only some of the traditional owners agreed.

Mr Kamps says a similar situation occurred in the US state of Nevada.

"One of the parallels that is very apparent is that often times it's politically vulnerable locations and even Indigenous people's lands that are targeted for these waste dumps," he said. "So that same environmental injustice seems to be at play here in Australia with the proposed Commonwealth dump in the Northern Territory, again on the land of traditional owners."

NIRS reports that nuclear power stations are a sunset industry. Despite so-far hollow nuclear industry claims of a "resurgence," the reality is that the world’s nuclear reactors continue to decline in number.

In the largest single-day shutdown in history, seven commercial atomic reactors closed permanently on December 31, 2006. These included Kozloduy in Bulgaria; Bohunice in Slovakia; and Dungeness, Sizewell in the United Kingdom.

American nuclear reactors produced up to 30 metric tonnes of waste each year, which posed serious health and environmental risks, he said.

"Nuclear power is still a very contentious issue in the US with most people asking where do we put the waste," he said. "If reactors are built, they will serve as waste storage sites for many years in the future and there is a massive risk for accidents."

Mr Kamps pointed to the Yucca Mountain proposed dump in Nevada that had now been delayed as a groundswell of opposition grew. He said nearby residents and environmentalists did not want the dump because of the site's location on a fault line, near drinking water supplies and on volcanic land. He argued that the same problem would happen in Australia if nuclear energy was developed.

Last month the South Australian city of Port Augusta, north of Adelaide, was named the most likely location for Australia's first nuclear power plant by The Australia Institute thinktank.

Mr Kamps dismissed the argument put by Prime Minister John Howard that nuclear energy was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal. "The creation of a nuclear power industry to decrease emissions trades one ecological disaster for another," he said.

Despite the misinformation campaign by the nuclear industry, nuclear power is not a carbon-free technology.

Only the reactors themselves are carbon-neutral. But the rest of the nuclear fuel chain (including mining of uranium, milling, processing and enrichment of uranium, construction of reactors and other necessary major nuclear facilities, and radioactive waste storage) results in significant release of carbon.

To the extent that nuclear reactors would directly replace existing coal plants, modest carbon reductions would occur; to the extent that new reactors would represent new capacity—the result would be an increase in greenhouse gases, not a decrease. Nuclear power is far more costly than most other alternatives, especially when the full cost of the entire nuclear fuel chain is considered.

NRIS reports that spending the levels of resources necessary to build dozens of new reactors, not to mention thousands, would result in insufficient resources to deploy essentially carbon-free technologies and thus would prevent the world from achieving the level of greenhouse gas emissions cuts now widely regarded as necessary (about 80% cut by mid-century).

Mr Kamps says in the the US the nuclear energy industry is propped up by billion-dollar government subsidies and renewable energy industries such as wind power are growing quickly.

"Wind is the fastest growing new source of electricity in the United States," he said. "You can put up wind turbines in a matter of months, where it takes years and years [for a nuclear reactor], the last built reactor in the United States cost $7 billion and took 23 years to build and we need to act in the near term to address the climate crisis - we can't wait for nuclear power."

At best, construction of 2-3,000 new reactors would result in emissions reductions of around 20%, but would require capital costs of $4-8 trillion or more. Far greater emissions reductions could be obtained by using our resources to fully develop and deploy more advanced and sustainable technologies.

However, the world is unlikely to be able to provide enough resources to implement large-scale nuclear and the more sustainable technologies.

SOURCES:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Campaigner warns against uranium mining - ABC
Alternatives to Nuclear
Wikipedia: Nuclear_Information_and_Resource_Service
Reactors to become 'nuclear storage sites' - News Ltd
US waste specialist warns against nuclear energy - ABC News

Howard's Nuclear Future - Reeks of Cronyism, Hypocrisy and Misinformation

MARCH 5, 2007: The controversial appointment of high profile nuclear-power proponent, Ziggy Switkowski - to head Australia's nuclear research body (ANSTO) has been widely criticised. Dr Switkowski's report to Prim Minister Howard late last year proposed a scenario of 25 Australian nuclear reactors. Critcs say "due process had been thrown out the window in the nuclear debate".

“We are talking about the world’s most hazardous energy source, yet the Government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not robust. It is simply not good enough,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney.

Meanwhile, John Howard's push for dozens of Australian nuclear reactors and his relationship with nuclear reactor proponents - Ron Walker and friends - highlights the cronyism and hypocrisy of a nuclear power push in Australia...
The Federal Opposition has criticised the Government's appointment of Ziggy Switkowski as chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Science Minister Julie Bishop says Switkowski is the ideal choice to head ANSTO, as Australia considers nuclear power as an alternative to coal.

Labor's Kim Carr is critical of Switkowski's ANSTO appointment, saying: "his recent report for the Prime Minister lends weight to the view that he will be pursuing an agenda by this Government, for this Government, to impose nuclear power upon Australia."

With the Prime Minister's push for nuclear reactors, and his dubious relationship with nuclear-reactor proponent Ron Walker, the subject of intense scrutiny, the nuclear power hypocrisy deserves to be put under the microscope.

Howard admitted last week that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Switkowski. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia.

ANE issued a statement saying it was a "private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs" and denied it had proposed to build nuclear power plants.

Greens' nuclear spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said Howard and Rudd need to be straight with the community about uranium mining, exports, nuclear reactors and waste dumps and the discussions they are having with party backers, pollsters, the mining industry and nuclear proponents.

"It is no wonder Australians are confused about how Australia is suddenly in the grip of a major nuclear push when overwhelmingly the community opposes it. Conflicts of interest, hypocrisy, and cronyism are rife. Transparency of process and freedom of information are the cornerstones of democracy. They are sadly lacking in Australia right now," Senator Milne said.

The federal opposition says the new chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has been appointed to follow the government's agenda. "Whatever Mr Ziggy Switkowski's considerable professional qualifications, this will be seen as a highly controversial appointment," Labor's science spokesman Kim Carr said.

Despite scientists and the community objections, Switkowski's report proposed that nuclear-power would offset climate change because it would be clean and cost competitive in its own right.

Labor's Energy spokesman Chris Evans says Mr Howard is pushing an agenda. "It's clear that the Prime Minister is encouraging people to go down the path of nuclear energy," he said. "The Howard Government's plan to take us down the nuclear path is much more advanced than people thought."

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says Switkowski's appointment represents a conflict of interest. ACF's Dave Sweeney said Switkowski's appointment showed that due process had been thrown out the window in the nuclear debate currently raging in the country. Mr Sweeney said the appointment highlighted the Government's quest to push nuclear energy, especially when the Government had not yet responded to Dr Switkowski's nuclear inquiry report.

"We are talking about the world's most hazardous energy source, yet the government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not robust," he said. "It is simply not good enough."

Mr Sweeney said the Prime Minister's haste towards a nuclear program had seen an unashamedly pro-nuclear Mr Howard hand-pick a taskforce to examine domestic nuclear power and then appoint as taskforce chairman a man who was on the board of Australia's largest nuclear agency.

He said the taskforce delivered a "one-eyed pro-nuclear report" that lacked detail on costing and siting, failed to address the two key issues of nuclear safeguards and radioactive waste, and was widely criticised. "Before the dust settles on this report, before the Government has even formally responded to this report, its chief author is promoted and put in charge of its implementation," Mr Sweeney said. "Mr Switkowski has a clear conflict of interest. "

Labor called Dr Switkowski a "pawn for the Government". But Dr Switkowski said his experience heading up the nuclear power study would be an advantage in his new position. "ANSTO itself, I think, is well progressed in its thinking around all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle," Dr Switkowski said on ABC radio. "The fact that I now return as chairman will lead to a situation where the board will continue to be, I think, conversant with and in some cases quite expert in the areas of ANSTO, which is what you would want."

Meanwhile, John Howard himself told Parliament last week that: "I might remind the leader of the Opposition that the laws of the Commonwealth and the state as they now stand, prohibit any nuclear power generation in Australia..."


The Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, said he would hold a plebiscite if the Federal Government tried to override state laws and build a plant in Victoria. "There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste, No. 1," he said. "No. 2, the general safety of the plan is questionable, and No. 3, the economics are just not there." The South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, said no reactor would be contemplated while he was premier.

Labor's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, said he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country."

The Wilderness Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven said any Australian nuclear plan must be stopped. "If we just went blindly down this path of producing nuclear power we would just end up with this massive waste problem which would become Australia's biggest waste problem ever and for an extremely long time."

The 'debate' continues...

---

SEE RELATED:
Suburban homes uninsured against nuclear accidents || NT Uranium Mine Danger: Heavy rains pose radioactive risk to Kakadu

---

SOURCES:
ABC News
Media Release - Senator Milne
The Age
News Ltd
Ziggy’s promotion a process meltdown - ACF
WA Business News
Govt to nuclear company - ABC PM
Howard's nuclear plan 'more advanced' - ABC News
Sydney Morning Herald
Businessmen deny nuclear proposal - SMH

NT Uranium Mine Danger: Heavy rains pose radioactive risk to Kakadu

MARCH 5, 2007 - Ranger danger: Heavy rains pose radioactive risk to Kakadu - Australia’s largest National Park faces the threat of radioactive and heavy metal contamination from flooding at the controversial Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu. Operations have been halted and workers evacuated from Energy Resources of Australia’s mine after access was cut by rising water...
There are serious concerns over the risk of contaminated water and mine wastes from Ranger being spread through the wider Kakadu environment. In 2003 a Senate Inquiry into Ranger concluded that ‘the intense and highly seasonal wet season of the NT makes the dispersion of mine waste waters the main threat to ecosystems’ and found ‘a pattern of underperformance and non-compliance’.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has called for the urgent implementation of the Senate recommendations and an independent review of water and waste management at the Ranger mine in the light of the latest flooding and contamination risk.

“As the flood waters and radioactive risks continue to rise the federal government remains complacent,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney. “For four years the government has failed to implement a set of commonsense recommendations. It has found time to try and dump radioactive waste in the NT and promote domestic nuclear power but not to protect World Heritage Kakadu.”

“This latest flooding shows the real impacts and risks of uranium mining,” said Dave Sweeney. “ERA wants to extend the life of Ranger mine, instead they should be cleaning up and clearing out – this industry is neither foolproof nor waterproof. Uranium mining is not a clean trade. Federal Labor should not consider new uranium mines when the existing ones are leaking, dangerous and deficient.”

Uranium mining consumes millions of litres of water every day and a huge amount of electricity. It generates an estimated 1 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year, and has displaced many square kilometres of native vegetation to make way for the processing plants and tailings dumps.

The uranium is used to generate power in a nuclear reactor, power that Prime Minister John Howard says is "cleaner and greener than just about any other form of energy". But in the rush to embrace nuclear power as a way to combat climate change, the damage uranium mining does to the environment seems to have been all but forgotten.

Australian uranium mines and tailings dumps have a history of leakages and spills; many of the accidents have been minor but some have been serious. The most notable in recent years involved the contamination of workers' drinking water at the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory in 2004. It happened when water used during the uranium extraction process was mistakenly connected to the drinking-water supply.

The Northern Territory Government viewed the breaches of regulations at the mine "very seriously". It recommended the first prosecution against Energy Resources Australia since it had begun operating the mine in the world-heritage Kakadu National Park in 1980.

Doctors were unable to advise the workers about the long-term effects on their health because no one in the world had ever drunk such large amounts of uranium-contaminated water.

SOURCES:
ACF MEDIA RELEASE
The Age
Sydney Morning Herald
Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia
Cyclone causes flooding across NT - ABC

Why nuclear energy is not the solution to climate change

February 1, 2007: Faced with unrelenting local and global pressure over climate change, Prime Minister John Howard punches the nuclear power button almost every time he opens his mouth these days. His recent taskforce, looking at alternatives to fossil-fuel, yet stacked with nuclear industry proponents, announced over New Year 2007 that uranium mining be expanded and that nuclear energy is a viable option for Australia.

But nuclear power is not an answer to climate change...

If the argument is about greenhouse gases, Peter Bradford, former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says that: even if nuclear is fast-tracked over all other energy prospects, nuclear cannot provide more than 10-15% of greenhouse gas displacement likely to be needed by 2050.

Bradford says: "Not only can nuclear power not stop global warming, it is probably not even an essential part of the solution to global warming."

Extensive studies have shown that humans urgently need to shift to cleaner, safer energy sources to tackle the challenge of debilitating global climate change. And according to Friends of the Earth, there is no case for nuclear power to be part of the future energy mix. The environmental organisation said in November 2006, that nuclear power was a "dangerous distraction" from the safe solutions to the global crisis of climate change.

Globally, nuclear power currently supplies around three per cent of global energy - albeit at massive economic and environmental cost. Yet Friends of the Earth say renewable energy sources can supply considerably more than the International Energy Agency's highest global energy forecasts.

There are vast solar energy resources in Australia's deserts, for example, which can be converted to electricity by simple and safe mirror-based technologies. Globally, these could generate power on a scale of between ten and hundred times greater than any feasible nuclear expansion. And this technology is available right now.

Yet John Howard regurgitates the uranium industry line that nuclear power is "clean and green," when it is simply not true.

Nuclear power is not good for greenhouse gas reduction, because it requires huge amounts of fossil fuels - for mining, milling and enrichment of uranium. Furthermore, nuclear energy is dependent on the concentration of the uranium ore - and as more uranium is used, the quality of ore is depleted. According to recent analysis, even with high-grade ore, it would take 10 years to "pay back" the energy used in construction and fuelling of a typical reactor. And with lower-grade ore - if nuclear power were to be widely expanded - the net emissions would be far greater than a gas power station. Other studies show that uranium reserves would be depleted within 5-10 years if used to replace Coal as an energy source globally.

Water is also an issue in the nuclear energy cycle, consuming millions of litres of water to produce any fuel. Yet many towns and shires across Australia are struggling to get enough drinking water - let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle. This is water that we simply cannot afford as chronic drought and looming climate change dry up water supplies in this country.

There is also the perpetual issue of nuclear waste. The nuclear industry is a producer of highly toxic, radioactive and hazardous waste. Yet in over 50 years, scientists have still not found a viable solution to the ongoing problem of radioactive waste. Nuclear power stations produce the most dangerous industrial wastes known to humankind. Reports estimate that even without expansion, by 2015 there will be roughly 250,000 tonnes to deal with. Beyond the waste issue, radioactive leaks continue. Since Chernobyl in 1986, more than 22 serious leaks have been documented. There are far greater safety issues involved with nuclear energy than any other method of generating power.

In terms of economic efficiency, nuclear power is the most expensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is not economically viable without significant government subsidies. It is well known that the nuclear energy industry is heavily subsidised by taxpayers across the planet. Canada for example has a 4 billion dollar debt attributed to nuclear energy. And the USA provides direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalling $115 billion, with a further $145 billion of indirect subsidies.

But similar support has not been forthcoming for renewable energy. If the money invested in nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies were spent on energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources - perhaps we would be much closer to meeting our needs at a far lower cost to the environment and power consumers.

Wind power, for example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is far cheaper than nuclear. For the same investment, wind generates more electricity, and offers more jobs. Renewable energy is getting cheaper the more we produce in Australia. In recent years, over 6,000 megawatts of wind generation have been installed every year in Europe. This is the equivalent of three nuclear power plants.

Australians want renewable energy. A National Poll in 2003 found that 76% of respondents would pay an additional 5% on their energy bills for a 10% increase in renewable energy - when the alternative was cheap energy at any environmental cost.

Professor Ian Lowe, Australian Conservation Foundation President says, "be in no doubt: renewable energy works. Renewables now account for a quarter of the installed capacity of California, a third of Sweden's energy, half of Norway's and three-quarters of Iceland's. It is time we joined the clean energy revolution sweeping the progressive parts of the world," he said. "Renewables can meet Australia's energy demands. Just 15 wind farms could supply enough power for half the homes in NSW," said Professor Lowe.

Fitting solar panels to just half the houses in Australia could supply 7% of all our electricity needs, including industry needs - enough in fact for the whole of Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying a small percent of the world energy demand.

Nuclear energy only produces electricity and can not replace petrol or diesel as fuel for cars, trucks, ships and planes - road transport is currently the source of 22% of carbon dioxide emissions, and aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions.

Nuclear power is not a sustainable energy source - it is greenhouse intensive, it is costly, dangerous, and produces toxic waste which hangs around for hundreds of thousands of years.

But don't let John Howard distort and polish the dubious reality of nuclear power, find out for yourself...

Sources:
- Media Release - FOE
- International Energy Agency
- Professor Ian Lowe. National Press Club, October 19, 2005
- Nuclear Power - Dr Helen Caldicott
- Boston Globe
- John Busby
- Sustainable Development Commission

Decommisioned toxic nuclear reactor parts to be dumped in Australian desert?

JAN 30 2007: Used reactor parts: Environmentalists have warned against dumping radioactive waste from Australia's Lucas Heights old nuclear reactor parts in the Northen Territory. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says its not yet known which site in the NT will be chosen as Australia's first central nuclear waste dump. The 50-year-old HIFAR reactor in Sydney's south is being decommissioned. Minister Bishop shut down Australia's first nuclear reactor today...

January 30, 2007 marks the end of the Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in the city's south, after almost 50 years of operation. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says it is confident ongoing problems with Australia's next nuclear reactor "will be fixed by the time it is meant to come on line."

The work of the reactor will be taken over by the new Argentinian-designed research reactor called OPAL. The new $350 million OPAL reactor replaces the old facility, which opened in 1958 as Australia's first nuclear reactor.

ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in the commissioning phase - citing certain leaks as one of the problems.

The federal government plan to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT. But critics have warned against dumping the Lucas Heights reactor's old radioactive parts in the desert. But Arid Lands Environment Centre spokeswoman Natalie Wasley says it would be much better for the old parts of the reactor to remain at Lucas Heights. "The Australian Nuclear Association have all said that there is room here, they have the technology, they have the capability and they have the storage room," she said. "Also there are trained personnel here who deal with radioactive material, and they'll be on site all the time. So that's definitely a lot better option than sticking it out in a remote area in the desert."

Wilderness Society nuclear spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site. "We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.

"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down, should stay where it is and be managed locally."

The $50 million decommissioning process has begun with the official shutdown of the facility. Fuel will then be removed and fluid drained from the facility, before radioactive materials within the reactor are left there to decay.

NSW Greens senator Kerry Nettle said she feared the decommissioning process of the old facility would not be as successful as hoped. Science was not far enough advanced to safely dispose of nuclear waste, she said.

"Not one single commercial nuclear power reactor around the world has been successfully decommissioned," Ms Nettle said. "We know from the evidence this nuclear site may never become safe, regardless of any new reactor. We don't have the technological and scientific answers of how to dispose of this waste."

The Wilderness Society called on the Federal Government to fully outline its plans for the disposal of radioactive waste from the reactor. "The Federal Government must make clear to local communities where they plan on storing this nuclear waste that remains toxic for millions of years," said society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven. "Local communities along transport routes will also be concerned about the tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste that will be trucked past their homes."

Over its 40-year life, OPAL will generate several cubic metres of high-level waste, which it intends to store in a remote location in the Northern Territory.

SOURCES:

Nuclear group says new reactor ready soon - ABC
Science Minister turns off nuclear reactor - ABC
Nuclear reactor's life coming to an end - ABC
Curtains for Lucas Heights after nearly 50 years - SMH
New nuclear reactor fires up energy debate
Where are they planning to dump radioactive waste? - MIM
Arid Lands Environment Centre

REJECT NUCLEAR POWER - nuclear energy is not an option

Prime Minister John Howard pushes the nuclear power button almost every time he opens his mouth these days, but upon a bit of rational analysis, nuclear is not the solution to Climate Change Nuclear energy is not carbon neutral.

Indeed, the Nuclear energy cycle contributes millions of tonnes a year to global greenhouse emissions, so nuclear power is not an effective option in combating greenhouse gas emissions.

Claims that nuclear power represents a solution to the problem of climate change are laughable. The nuclear power option is expensive, ineffective and absolutely unnecessary...

REJECT NUCLEAR POWER - Nuclear energy is not an option!

Why does John Howard continue to regurgitate the Uranium industry line that Nuclear Power is "clean and green," when it is simply not true...?

Upon analysis, nuclear power is definitely not the way to achieve necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - and besides those with a vested interest, nobody seems to want it.

The planet does not need another dirty industry to add to the litany of human-induced problems we custodians of the mighty eco-sphere have caused.

In June, Mr Howard set up an energy review, to be headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski. The review is part of a push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix. and Howard is pushing the barrow for the nuke industry.

But he is wrong.

Nuclear power is not, as suggested by some, a good example of greenhouse gas reduction. This is mainly because of the significant fossil fuel energy requirements for mining, milling and, particularly, enrichment of the uranium for the fuel rods. These energy inputs are highly dependent on the concentration of the original ore.

According to recent analysis, even with high-grade ore, it would take 10 years to "pay back" energy used in the construction and fuelling of a typical reactor. And with lower-grade ore needed - if nuclear power was widely expanded - the net emissions would be far greater than for a gas power station for example.

Water is also an issue: The nuclear energy cycle uses millions of litres of water to get the job done. Yet many towns and shires in across Australia are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle. This is water that we simply cannot afford as chronic drought and climate change dry up water supplies.

And what a waste! Nuclear power stations, in the course of normal operations, produce the most dangerous industrial wastes known to humankind. Unfortunately for the industry, humanity, and the biosphere, this orgy of construction was undertaken without any clear idea of what to do with the waste.

Reports estimate that by 2015 there will be roughly 250,000 tonnes to deal with if the industry is not stopped.

A producer of highly radioactive and hazardous waste, the nuclear industry has not, in over fifty years of trying, found a viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste.

What do you do with hundreds of millions of tonnes of radioactive poison?

Safety is also a problem: Beyond the waste issue, radioactive leaks continue - since Chernobyl in 1986, 22 serious leaks have been recorded.

There are far greater safety issues involved with nuclear than any other method of generating power. Highly toxic radioactive waste is generated at every step of the nuclear cycle and the possibility of an accident, such as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, amounts to completely unacceptable risk.

Efficient? No way. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite massive historical government support for the industry globally. It is heavily subsidised by taxpayer money across the planet. Canada for example has a 4 billion dollar debt attributed to nuclear energy.

The same level of support has not been available for energy efficiency and renewable energy. In countries such as the US and Britain, where it has had recent relative exposure to competition, the nuclear power industry has been in the economic doldrums for the past 20 years.

Dubbed a "sunset industry," many believe the renewed global push for nuclear power is a last ditch grasp by a nuclear industry "on its knees."

Climate Change experts are saying Australians must focus on renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. The needs of the people and the environment should come before those of the vested interests promoting and cashing in on nuclear energy.

People's voices and actions matter: In Australia, Local Government led the way with the implementation of Nuclear Free Zones across many council areas as far back as the 1980’s. Governments, and the people that elect them continue to recognise the enormous risks that nuclear technology represents.

There is near-unanimous opposition among environmentalists to nuclear power, suggestions that we are split over the issue are purely misleading.

Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to occur because weak international safeguards of fissile materials are ineffective. When Australia exports uranium overseas we inevitably contribute to the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Greenhouse emissions: But the key problem here, is the significant greenhouse gas generation across the nuclear fuel cycle from mining and milling of uranium, construction and decommissioning of rectors, transportation and management of waste including reprocessing and disposal.

Even if it were a viable option, replacing fossil fuel fired electricity plants with nuclear does nothing to address the problem of global warming.

If the money invested in nuclear technology and fossil fuel industry subsidies were spent on energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources we would be a lot closer to meeting our needs at a much lower cost to the environment and consumers.

Wind power, as an example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is now far cheaper than nuclear. For the same investment, wind generates more electricity, and offers more jobs.

In recent years, over 6,000 megawatts of wind generation have been installed every year in Europe, the equivalent of two or three large nuclear power plants.

By comparison, only one nuclear reactor has been built in the past six years, and it takes around 10 years to build the next. In the US, the last new reactor was ordered in 1978.

Furthermore, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, as it needs scarce uranium to fuel its reactors.

If we would replace all fossil fuels with nuclear power, the world would run out of uranium in less than four years.

Currently, nuclear is a marginal energy source, supplying only two percent of the world energy demand, and there is no realistic scenario in which this could be significantly increased.

Clearly Nuclear Power is not the answer. It is a problem...

SOURCES:
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT AN OPTIONWhy nuclear power is part of the problem
The nuclear power option - expensive, ineffective and unnecessary
Nuclear is not the solution to Greenhouse<
UIC
wikipedia: Nuclear_power
Once a sunset industry, the Uranium Lobby Paints a Green Dawn
ANNAWA

Nuclear exports to China pose serious security, political, environmental risks

JANUARY 7, 2007: The Australian Conservation Foundation is raising serious concerns around the security, political and environmental risks of the newly ratified Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement that gives the green light for Australian uranium producers to commence exports to China. The deal allows Canberra to cancel uranium exports if Beijing violates any provisions in the pact. John Howard has encouraged Australians to cash in on its vast uranium deposits for export and to meet Australia's future energy needs.

Australia has about 40 per cent of all known uranium reserves and accounts for about 23 per cent of global production of the nuclear fuel...

The announcement last week, that the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement has been ratified, shows "gross irresponsibility on the part of the Australian Government," says Dave Sweeney, Nuclear-Free Campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation.

"China is a known nuclear weapons state with clear and proven links between its civil and military nuclear programs. Exporting Australian uranium to China will free up domestic reserves that could be used in China's nuclear weapons program, inflaming regional insecurity and nuclear risks including unresolved nuclear waste management."

The Australian Conservation Foundation has said that Australia’s safeguards are not foolproof, nor are they permanent. "China lacks important informal checks and balances on its nuclear industry. The civil society groups so important in overseeing and improving nuclear industry performance in the West – independent media, environmental NGOs, free trade unions, community organisations – are either missing or fledgling in China" said Sweeney.

Mr Sweeney said that by exporting uranium to China, Australia will be fuelling a potential nuclear cross-fire in North Asia and bequeathing a terrible radioactive legacy to the region.

"Every gram of exported Australian uranium ends up as nuclear waste and has the potential to fuel nuclear weapons. Fifty years into the nuclear experiment, no country has found a way to dispose of nuclear waste and the unique security, human and environmental hazards it poses," said Mr Sweeney.

"China is seeking new energy sources, but nuclear is not the answer. It is not clean, green, cheap or safe. Rather than leaving future Chinese generations with a radioactive legacy, Australia should be helping China make the transition to a clean energy future by exporting renewable energy technology," he added.

Lsst week, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer announced that Canberra and Beijing had ratified the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement, and the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement through an exchange of Diplomatic Notes in China. The two treaties were signed in Canberra in April during a visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

Ratification of this dubious nuclear safeguard agreements with China has cleared the way for BHP Billiton to produce an additional $2 billion a year in uranium from its Olympic Dam mine in SA. The task of finding a home for the radioactive material has now been made easier with China a potential major customer.

Australia's other big uranium producer, Energy Resources of Australia, is also locked into long-term contracts. A recent increase in the reserve base at its Ranger mine in the NT has ERA hunting down fresh contracts covering 11,100 tonnes of uranium for sale between 2014 and 2020. First production from the high-grade operation is not now expected until 2010, effectively delaying 37 per cent of the new uranium supply previously forecast to be available before then.

The World Nuclear Association has forecast that uranium demand could rise from about 65,000 tonnes in 2006 to 78,000 tonnes in 2015 and to 111,000 tonnes in 2030. Australia is poised to cash in on that growth, with BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam project in South Australia planning to at least triple annual production to 15,000 tonnes.

Subject to WA and Qld governments lifting bans on uranium mining, the number of Australian mines could double before 2010. Currently Australia has four mining operations - Olympic Dam, Ranger, Beverley and Honeymoon.

A recent price surge reflects the potential for near-term supply shortages at a time when nuclear power is enjoying unprecedented acceptance - because of its misleading claim that Nuclear energy somehow has a role in combating global warming.

Sources:
ACF MEDIA RELEASE
Olympic Dam set for China offensive - SMH
Uranium miners prepare for a glowing future - SMH
Australia to sell uranium to China - Aljazeera
World Nuclear Association - Pro Nuclear
Uranium Information Centre - Pro Nuclear
World Information Service on Energy
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Senator Campbell is a nuclear obscenity

JAN 8 07, Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has said that the WA Government should reassess it's ban on Uranium Mining because nuclear power could significantly help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the WA Government is standing firm on its anti-uranium mining stance.

Despite nuclear energy being wrongly touted as a "clean and green" energy source, the Howard government continues to push it's obscene suggestion that Nuclear Energy is a solution to Climate Change. Firstly, Nuclear power is still as radioactive, dangerous, heavily subsidised by taxpayers, and as hideously xpensive as it ever was.

But now the uranium and nuclear industries want to increase profit using global warming as an excuse. They want to leave future generations to deal with the masses of toxic radioactive waste. The Howard government must realise that Nuclear power will not stop global warming.

Indeed, replacing polluting coal power with another environmental disaster, nuclear power, is clearly not the answer...
The WA government has stated that it will stand by its no uranium mine policy - one of Labor's central policies in the 2005 state election. But Senator Campbell and WA Environment Minister Tony McRae debated it in Perth on Monday.

Senator Campbell said WA's position was absurd. "The world will need more uranium and WA should not just sit on it, it's obscene."

He said the WA Government would change its mind as the community became aware of that nuclear energy could prevent climate change, he said erroneously in Perth.

"The public pressure will build to the extent that the absurdity of the WA Government policy will become obvious and (Premier) Mr (Alan) Carpenter will do what he does so well and that is change his mind," said Senator Campbell.

WA Environment Minister, Tony McRae said energy efficiency, renewable energies and clean energies were the key to fighting climate change and the WA Government would not review its ban on uranium mining.

"Nuclear really is a dud technology, the best uranium available in the world today could run at current demand and be depleted within about 30 years," Mr McRae said.

"There is not one nuclear power plant operating in the world today that is not subsidised to the tune of millions of dollars for its construction and operation. And that's not even taking into account the legacy of 25 to 50,000 years of storage of the waste," he said.

Acting WA Premier Eric Ripper also rejected the call to dump the ban, calling Senator Campbell "a nuclear fanatic".

"I mean, the answer to greenhouse gas emissions is to look at clean coal technology, to promote renewables, solar, wind, wave, biomass, to invest in energy efficiency," Mr Ripper said. "And, of course, Western Australia is contributing substantially to one of the other answers, which is to export LNG so that it replaces coal, for example, in Chinese power stations."

Mr Ripper said if WA lifted the ban it would come under intense pressure to accept an international waste dump. "And that's something I know our electorate would be strongly opposed to," he said.

"We went to the people at the last election saying we're opposed to nuclear power, we're opposed to uranium mining and we're opposed to a waste dump in Western Australia, that's the contract we have with the people and we intend to honour that commitment."

Australia Democrats Leader Lyn Allison said Senator Campbell's call for WA to overturn its ban on uranium mining was "a fool's response to an urgent problem... if Senator Campbell was serious he would set up a carbon levy so nuclear, fossil and renewable power can compete on a level playing field," Senator Allison said.

"Australia's poor response to climate change is not the shortage of uranium or uranium mines, it's the Howard government's protectionism on coal."

A new reactor takes 10 years on average to build. Renewable energy is ready now. We need to take action now to stop climate change. We can't wait for 10 years. The UK's first offshore wind farm (at North Hoyle, Wales) took just eight months to build.

Studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other estimate that we would need to build at least 1000 reactors worldwide for nuclear power to have any effect on global warming.

This just won't happen as current growth in nuclear electricity is about four per cent and investors aren't keen on nuclear power's uncertain financials. And 1000 new reactors mean 1000 more nuclear threats that we can't guard against.

Nuclear power cannot deliver in the fight against global warming. Nuclear power is used only to generate electricity. It represents only 16 per cent of the world's electricity. Electricity itself only accounts for about one third of greenhouse gases.

Peter Bradford, formerly of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says: "Nuclear power cannot be a magic bullet answer to climate change. Even if it is scaled up much faster than anything now in prospect, it cannot provide more than 10 to 15 per cent of the greenhouse gas displacement that is likely to be needed by mid-century... Not only can nuclear power not 'stop global warming', it is probably not even an essential part of the solution to global warming."

SOURCES:
Sunday Times
The West
Make a Readers Comment at the Sunday Times website
WA Business News
GP - Why nuclear power is not a solution
Perth Indymedia