Showing posts with label Toxicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toxicity. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

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

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

End Olympic Dam special treatment


June 6, 2007: Greens want to end Olympic Dam's special treatment - The Greens will move in the South Australian Parliament to scrap exemptions to state laws given to BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in outback SA. The $7 billion BHP Billiton Olympic Dam project is planned to become the world’s biggest uranium producer, the third or fourth largest copper mine, and one of Australia’s largest gold mines...

Greens MLC Mark Parnell will introduce a private member's bill to remove the mining company's exemptions from laws on Aboriginal heritage, environment protection and natural resource management. He says the exemptions were granted 25 years ago and times have changed.

Mr Parnell is also concerned that BHP Billiton is not bound by the same water use laws as other companies, giving it an unfair advantage. "I think that there are certainly problems with water resources. This mine does not have to comply with the same regime as everyone else and they're also not bound by the same pollution laws that other companies have to operate under," he said. "If the company is as good as the Government says then there should be no problem in removing these special exemptions.

"I think now that the only fair way is to make sure that all industrial players in this state operate under the same rules. You shouldn't have special rules for your favourite companies and other laws for the rest."

A spokesman for BHP Billiton says the indenture legislation does not allow the company to evade its legal obligations and the Olympic Dam mine is the most intensively regulated operation in SA.

BHP Billiton is considering a further major expansion of Olympic Dam to more than double its current production capacity - proposing to expand its mining and processing from around 200,000 tonnes per year of copper to approximately 500,000 tonnes per year. BHP Billiton would then be the world's biggest spender on an open cut mine. It would be a bigger hole than Kalgoorlie's "Super Pit", with more than a pit 3.6km x 3.65km and 1km deep.

Olympic Dam has long term contracts for the sale of uranium oxide concentrates to customers in the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada and the United States.

It is expected that at least 160 million tonnes of radioactive waste will be produced over the life-span of Olympic Dam mine. The waste includes radioactive wash water known as tailings which are stored in 75 hectare retention ponds with levees 30 metres high.

The Olympic Dam operations secured exemptions to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, the Development Act 1993, the Environmental Protection Act 1993, the Freedom of Information Act 1991, the Mining Act 1971, Natural Resources Act 2004 (including the Water Resources Act 1997)

This raft of exemptions embodied in the Roxby Downs Indenture Act effectively places this mine outside the law protecting accepted social, environmental and cultural values, and makes the company’s commitments to complying with strict standards manifestly unbelievable.

Radioactive and highly acidic tailings are a by-product of the milling process at Olympic Dam. Currently these are stored in a Tailings Dam called the Tailings Retention System (TRS). This system is vast, covering more than 500 hectares and standing 10 metres in height. More than 10 million tonnes of tailings per year are added to this massive reservoir.

In 1994 a massive leak from the TRS was reported. Over four years, three million cubic metres of liquid leaked through the aquifer.

Meanwhile, Safework SA is investigating an explosion at the Olympic Dam site in May. Contact was made with explosive during drilling work, causing the explosion. A worker was treated for injuries caused by rock debris.

In July 2005, a worker died while blasting a tunnel at the Olympic Dam mine.

SOURCES:
ABC News
Mine Web
ABC News
BHP
BHP: olympic dam eis
Wikipedia - Olympic_Dam
Olympic Dam Mine
MPI
ANAWA

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

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

Sunday, May 27, 2007

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

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

DEC Inspectors missed the Esperance lead shed - Inquiry


May 2, 2007 - Dozens of Esperance residents have recorded high lead levels and thousands of birds have died from lead poisoning around the southern port town since December last year. High readings of lead and nickel have also been found in rainwater tanks around Esperance.

A parliamentary inquiry currently investigating the matter has heard illegal lead shipments out of Esperance, which poisoned local residents and left hundreds of water tanks contaminated, were not detected by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The committee heard how an environmental inspector did not go into the loading area, but watched from a distance because he was concerned about his own health...
DEC's Kim Taylor said that during an initial inspection of the port in May 2005, just before the first lead shipment, the inspector did not enter the lead storage shed because his clothes did not meet OHS standards.

On an inspection in February 2007, an auditor again failed to identify lead was being shipped as powder and not as pellets — in spite of the export licence.

The committee was told of widespread contamination of town water tanks, soils and marine sediment surrounding the port, which had left 28 people with lead levels above the international recommended safe guidelines of 10 micrograms per decilitre.

Liberal MP Kim Hames, who is heading the inquiry, says if the committee can do a full inspection of the site in two hours today, a DEC inspector should have been able to do the same. Mr Hames expressed disbelief that no alarm was raised by the department about dust at the port. "We have had submissions from members of the public to say that when the lead is loaded, a cloud of dust can be seen above the ship," Dr Hames said.

The Department of Health revealed one in four children tested in the coastal town recorded lead levels high enough to warrant an inspection of their homes by health officials in an attempt to reduce any further lead exposure.

Of 239 children tested who fell into the high risk group of five years or younger, 56 recorded levels above 5mcg/dl and six tested above 10mcg.

Kim Taylor said DEC relied heavily on the Esperance Port and lead mining company Magellan Metals to inform it of any changes to the conditions governing the port’s lead export licence. He said the department, which is involved in the regulation of more than 2500 premises, could not meet its monitoring requirements.

DEC director-general Keiran McNamara, whose department is collecting evidence as part of a legal case against the port, said the responsibility ultimately lay with the port and mining company. Mr McNamara said DEC had also commissioned an independent review of its auditing and inspection processes.

The inquiry will also investigate how the lead was transported 900km from Wiluna to Esperance in dusty granules instead of heavier pellets, which produce fewer airborne contaminants. According to The Australian newspaper, government records show "Magellan was in breach of environmental and mine safety conditions as early as September 2004". Magellan Metals transported and exported lead carbonate through Esperance Port in powdered form rather than pellets.

The inquiry is due to report back to the Legislative Assembly by August 16.

---

Terms of Reference:
(1) That the Education and Health Standing Committee be requested to inquire into and report by 16 August 2007, on the cause and extent of lead pollution in the Esperance area, with specific reference to the following matters -
(a) how the environmental approval process for the transport and export of pelletised lead enabled the transport and export of granulated lead;
(b) the effectiveness of dust monitoring and reporting in relation to lead levels in the area and the adequacy of the response to those reported levels;
(c) the extent to which handling and other practices at Esperance Port gave rise to the benthic lead levels in the harbour;
(d) whether the Esperance Port Authority properly exercised its responsibilities in relation to the potential lead pollution;
(e) whether the Department of Environment and Conservation’s responsibilities in relation to the Esperance Port Authority processes , practices and procedures, including the legal and regulatory framework, were adequate and properly exercised; and
(f) that the Committee is given power to investigate any other issues pertinent to the cause and extent of lead pollution in the Esperance area.

SOURCES:
The West
News Ltd
ABC News
DEC - Esperance Lead
Inquiry into the Cause and Effect of Lead Pollution in the Esperance Area
The Australian
The Australian
1000s of birds die around Esperance - Toxicity? - Perth Indymedia
Government alerts Esperance residents - tests reveal higher than recommended Lead levels

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Government alerts Esperance residents - tests reveal higher than recommended Lead levels

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - The WA Health Department say they are alerting Esperance residents after 12 in 900 blood tests were shown to have "higher than recommended levels of lead." Ten adults and two children under five have recorded lead levels above the World Health Organisation guideline of 10 micrograms per decilitre in the town in southern WA...
The Department will contact 12 Esperance residents after their blood showed up higher than recommended levels of lead. Over 900 Esperance residents have now been tested.

The department's director of environmental health, Jim Dodds, says another 1,000 tests are expected to be conducted over the next 10 days. Mr Dodds says the department will contact all residents who have been affected.

"We're contacting adults that are above 10 [micrograms per decilitre] and we are actually trying to follow up with children that have greater than five," he said. "We are trying to work with the Esperance community to locate people who have greater than five and interview them to see if it can help us understand this pattern."

Planning Minister Alannah MacTiernan says she takes the lead contamination scare seriously. She says she supports calls for a parliamentary inquiry into the lead contamination, which has killed thousands of birds and created health problems for some residents.

VARIOUS SOURCES

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

Monday, March 05, 2007

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

Coal lobby censors climate change website


5 March 2007: MINING INDUSTRY SILENCING DISSENT: A satirical website created by climate action group Rising Tide Newcastle has twice been shut down this fortnight by powerful coal industry lobby group, the NSW Minerals Council...
The website is a parody of the NSW Minerals Council's big-budget spin-doctor campaign to promote the 'virtues' of the coal industry.

Climate activist group Rising Tide built the site to highlight the growing contribution coal exports make to climate change.

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has criticised the powerful coal industry lobby group, the NSW Minerals Council, for attempting to censor the climate change debate by getting their lawyers to shut down a community based climate change website.

"This is an extraordinary case of censorship by the powerful coal industry," said Ms Rhiannon. "The NSW Minerals Council is pulling out all stops to censor public debate on the deadly impact of coal on our climate at a time when robust open debate on the future of coal is urgently needed."

"A recent Hunter survey that showed more than half of people in the Hunter now feel the negative impacts of coal far outweigh the positive benefits, has pushed the powerful coal lobby to this desperate measure."

After lawyers for the NSW Minerals Council complained to the website hosting company that Rising Tide's content was in breach of copyright, the website was shut down. Rising Tide contested this claim and hit back by re-designing the website to ensure it was not subject to copyright, but the lawyers moved in a second time and had the website shut down again. Rising Tide has now filed a counter claim that the NSW Mineral Council's grounds were spurious, and have re-launched their website today using an overseas internet service provider to protect the site from further attack.

"The NSW Minerals Council must be prepared to face open debate about coal instead of censoring community opinions that they are uncomfortable with," said Ms Rhiannon.

- NSW Mineral Council's coal public relations website – www.nswmining.com.au
- Rising Tide's parody website – www.miningnsw.com.au

The website was conceived as a response to the Minerals Council's “Life. Brought to you by Mining” advertising campaign.

The Minerals Council campaign, which argues that mining is inextricable from modern luxury can be viewed at www.nswmining.com.au. Rising Tide members created a parody website at www.miningnsw.com.au in order to present the other side of the story and address the damage wrought by mining to the local and global environment and to the local community.

Steve Phillips, spokesperson for Rising Tide Newcastle said, “The coal export industry constitutes NSW's biggest single contribution to global climate change. There is also growing public awareness of the terrible impacts of coal mining on biodiversity, water and air quality. The Minerals Council want people to know that luxury is dependent on mining: All we want is for the public to be fully informed about the consequences of that luxury, and to realise that while we can have jobs without coal, and we can have energy without coal, we cannot have a coal industry without climate change.”

Rising Tide has now moved the site to an off-shore host in order that the information contained within it can remain in the public domain.

“The Minerals Council is abusing legal process to ensure that its public-relations spin is unquestioned and that community criticism of its methods or message is quashed as quickly as possible” said Ned Haughton, the site’s graphical designer.

Mr. Phillips continued, "We have issued a counter-notice rejecting the Minerals Council's spurious claims. The Minerals Council now has ten days in which to take the matter further."

“The Minerals Council say they want a “balanced debate” on the impacts of coal mining on local, regional, and global environments – we welcome that wholeheartedly. Their rhetoric however, is sharply at odds with their attempts to silence legitimate criticism from community groups.”

For more information:

Ned Haughton on 0417 484 735
Steve Phillips on 0437 275 119.

Background:
* On February 19th this year, the NSW Minerals Council (NSWMC) launched an expensive public relations campaign with the slogan “Life: Brought to you by mining.” The campaign includes billboards, television, and newspaper advertisements, and the website www.nswmining.com.au

* Shortly after the launch of the NSWMC website, Rising Tide Newcastle (RTN)set up a satirical and critical website at www.miningnsw.com.au. This website was a mirror image of the NSWMC website, except that the text was different, describing the negative social and environmental effects of the mining industry.

* The hosts of the RTN website were contacted by NSWMC lawyers within 24 hours of the launch of the site. The NSWMC lawyers abused a clause of the Commonwealth Copyright Regulations to forced the website hosts to remove the site. RTN created the original website as a satirical imitation of the NSWMC site, with rewritten commentary. While this was most probably legal under the Copyright Act's Fair Dealing clause as a parody, the hosts were legally required to remove the site pending a response to the Minerals Council's claim of copyright infringement, which did not specify the articles of alleged copyright.

* RTN then completely re-made the site, with original layout and images that were either original or used with permission, in order to remove all possibility of copyright infringement. The NSWMC lawyers nevertheless contacted the new website hosts within 24 hours, with a similar claim letter, and again had the site removed under Regulation 20J of the Copyright Regulations.

* While the site had not contravened any copyright laws, as the lawyers for the NSWMC may well have known, the host was again legally obliged to remove the site.

* RTN have submitted a counter-notice, rejecting the allegations of the NSWMC. The NSWMC now have a 10 period in which they can take the matter further, which would require taking RTN to court over the incident.

* In the meantime, the RTN website has been relaunched with an offshore host. International copyright law does not have the same automatic take-down clause of Australian copyright law.

SOURCES:
melbourne.indymedia.org/news...
Parody Site: miningnsw.com.au
risingtide.org.au
Sydney Indymedia - Climate Mining

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Halt the Salt: Stop the world's largest salt mine being built in WA's north west

February 15, 2007: The Halt the Salt campaign to stop the world's largest salt mine from being built on the sensitive eastern edge of the Exmouth Gulf continues to attract widespread support. Recently, there have been two major developments in the campaign...
Government authorities examining the proposal have now agreed to extend the public comment period by a further two weeks until March 12.

The Halt the Salt Alliance also organised a successful public forum at which leading scientists expressed grave concerns at the proponents' environmental management plans.

Scientific community calls for cautious approach and further research. Leading experts in wetland systems, hydrology, prawn fisheries, marine ornithology, humpback whale migration and dugong behaviour addressed a public forum held in Perth on February 5.

Several presenters said the current research into the proposal for a salt mine was inadequate and required further detailed review of the scientific modelling and risk assumptions used.

Wetlands expert Dr Vic Semeniuk, environmental hydrogeologist Dr Colin Walker, former Department of Fisheries research director Dr Jim Penn and marine ornithologist Dr Nic Dunlop detailed significant risks to the sensitive environment and the failure of the current proposal to adequately address these risks.

They argued the proponents did not have a full understanding of the Exmouth Gulf environment, had failed to address basic questions and were unaware of the impact they could make.

Humpback whale migration expert Mr Curt Jenner and Department of Environment and Conservation dugong researcher Dr Bob Prince outlined the importance of the area to marine mammals and further research required to properly understand how a salt mine operation could impact on these populations.

Forum presentations support Alliance concerns

The Halt the Salt Alliance has repeated its call for the proposal to be scrapped after scientific experts at the February public forum backed its concerns.

Alliance spokesman Chris Tallentire said the views expressed publicly by internationally-recognised experts were a clear demonstration that the Alliance is not alone in its concerns and Straits is risking damage to an environment that it knows little about.

"Speakers at the forum were asked to provide their own independent opinions based solely on their expert backgrounds and credentials in critical areas of this proposal - their criticism and words of warning were a huge wake-up call for the proponent and the government," Mr Tallentire said.

Public pressure causes comment deadline to be extended

The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority and Straits Resources have bowed to public pressure and extended the period of community consultation for a further two weeks until March 12.

This decision was a clear acknowledgement that the community does have major, legitimate concerns and they must be properly and fully addressed.

The Alliance expressed its concerns
http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/news/news070102.php to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) over the badly inadequate consultation period for comment on Straits' proposal.

What you can do to support the campaign

Growing numbers of people from Australia and overseas, determined to help protect this unique environment, are making their views known to the Western Australian Government via the pro-forma submission http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/hts_submission/hts_submission.php .

Personalised letters, faxes or phone calls to politicians are also very important and the Alliance website has a full list of contact details http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/main/what_can_i_do.php#politicians.

Another good way of putting your views across is to write a Letter to the Editor and again the Alliance has details of how to make contact with the State's major newspapers: http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/main/what_can_i_do.php#letters or you can spread the word via your own local community newspaper

If you haven't seen a campaign information brochure you can download a copy from this site: http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/main/publications.php or contact one
of the Alliance affiliated bodies.

You can find out more about the extensive support for the campaign
by visiting the About Us: http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/main/about_us.php
and Links http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/main/links.php sections on the
website.

Monday, February 12, 2007

COKE - ETHICALLY OUT OF ORDER

Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable - Coca-Cola Crisis in India

Communities across India are under assault from Coca-Cola practices in the country. A pattern has emerged as a result of Coca-Cola's bottling operations in India.
* Communities across India living around Coca-Cola's bottling plants are experiencing severe water shortages, directly as a result of Coca-Cola's massive extraction of water from the common groundwater resource. The wells have run dry and the hand water pumps do not work any more. Studies, including one by the Central Ground Water Board in India, have confirmed the significant depletion of the water table.

* When the water is extracted from the common groundwater resource by digging deeper, the water smells and tastes strange. Coca-Cola has been indiscriminately discharging its waste water into the fields around its plant and sometimes into rivers, including the Ganges, in the area. The result has been that the groundwater has been polluted as well as the soil. Public health authorities have posted signs around wells and hand pumps advising the community that the water is unfit for human consumption.

* In two communities, Plachimada and Mehdiganj, Coca-Cola was distributing its solid waste to farmers in the area as "fertilizer". Tests conducted by the BBC found cadmium and lead in the waste, effectively making the waste toxic waste. Coca-Cola stopped the practice of distributing its toxic waste only when ordered to do so by the state government.

* Tests conducted by a variety of agencies, including the government of India, confirmed that Coca-Cola products contained high levels of pesticides, and as a result, the Parliament of India has banned the sale of Coca-Cola in its cafeteria. However, Coca-Cola not only continues to sell drinks laced with poisons in India (that could never be sold in the US and EU), it is also introducing new products in the Indian market. And as if selling drinks with DDT and other pesticides to Indians was not enough, one of Coca-Cola's latest bottling facilities to open in India, in Ballia, is located in an area with a severe contamination of arsenic in its groundwater.

Destroying Lives, Livelihoods and Communities

Water shortages, pollution of groundwater and soil, exposure to toxic waste and pesticides is having impacts of massive proportions in India. In a country where over 70% of the population makes a living related to agriculture, stealing the water and poisoning the water and soil is a sure recipe for disaster. Thousands of farmers in India have been affected by Coca-Cola's practices, and Coca-Cola is guilty of destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people in India.

Unfortunately, we do not even know the extent of the damage as a result from exposure to the toxic waste and pesticides as these are long term problems. Most affected are the marginalized communities such as the Adivasis (Indigenous People's) and Dalits (formerly untouchables), as well as the low-income communities, landless agricultural workers and women. Taken in its entirety, that's a lot of people in India.

Coca-Cola is destroying the food security of the people of the land, and by stealing the water and poisoning the water and soil, it is also responsible for ensuring a life of misery for future generations to come.

The irony is that most of the impacted community members, who are feeling the brunt of the water shortages and pollution, are unable to afford Coca-Cola. Which may be a good thing given that the product itself is poisonous. But it also raises the larger question of development in India. As is the case with the majority of other commodities in the Indian marketplace, only a fraction of the population are the "beneficiaries" of the current development policies. And unfortunately, the majority are not only left out of the so called "development" process, but they have to pay a high price for it as well.

The Struggles

The arrogance of Coca-Cola in India is not going unanswered. In fact, the growing opposition to Coca-Cola- primarily from Coca-Cola affected communities- has spread so rapidly and gained so much strength that Coca-Cola is now on the defensive.

READ MORE: INDIARESOURCE

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Australia should stop dirty exports - coal is the new asbestos

February 9, 2007: Australian of of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery, said exporting coal is not in Australia's national interest and the Federal Government should no longer be supporting the industry.

"This government has let the country down. This government has become a menace to the future of our children."

Greens Leader Bob Brown says Australia should phase out coal exports within the next three years. Brown's proposal follows comments by Professor Flannery, who said the "social licence" of coal is being withdrawn across the globe because of its massive contribution to greenhouse gas emissions...
Prime Minister John Howard is at odds with Australia's most celebrated climate scientist over coal. After being named Australian of the Year and vowing to criticise the government, Professor Flannery has called for an end to coal exports.

Dr Flannery said exporting coal could no longer be considered to be in Australia's national interest. "The social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally, and no government can protect an industry from that sort of thing occurring," he said. "We've seen it with asbestos, we'll see it with coal." Professor Flannery said it was too late for the planet to clean up coal.

Dr Flannery said rather than dirty coal, solar thermal and geothermal technologies could form the basis of meeting Australia's energy needs and they were better options than, for example, nuclear power.

Senator Bob Brown agrees. "Neither the Howard Coalition nor Rudd Labor will tackle our biggest cause of climate change - burning coal. Both the parties support burning more, not less," Senator Brown said. "This is an extreme position considering the massive economic and environmental crisis the world is facing."

"The nation should rapidly transform to being the world's largest exporter of solar power technology, other renewable energy options and energy efficiency technology - creating thousands of jobs and a multi-billion dollar export income in tandem with the replacement of coal," Senator Brown said.

However Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce says Australians would be "living on the streets under a tarpaulin" if the country adopted the plan. Senator Joyce said coal was Australia's major trade export earner, and ceasing exports would cause untold economic harm. Senator Joyce said Australia should be pursuing research into clean-coal technology, but not at the expense of the coal industry.

Senator Brown said Howard's silver bullet of "clean coal" technology was at least a decade away and the government could not wait to phase out coal over 30-years.

Senator Brown proposed a reduction of coal exports and their replacement with exports of renewable energy. He said Australia had fantastic solar energy research which could save the planet but which was being purchased by foreign companies. "We do need extreme measures compared to what has happened in the past," he said. "This government has let the country down. This government has become a menace to the future of our children."

Senator Brown said the Greens saw it as politically unacceptable to have a phase-out over 30 years which would wipe out the lifestyle, economy and jobs of future generations. "The Greens are talking about intervening on the market. The big parties won't and so are therefore saying let this country and the rest of the planet go to perdition because we won't take action," he said.

"We are a rich and wealthy country. We can look after the coal miners and we can replace their fortunes with a much more job-productive industry." Senator Brown said he was proposing a reduction of coal exports and replacing them with exports of renewable energy.

He said Australia had fantastic solar energy research which could save the planet but which was being purchased by foreign companies. Australia can no longer put its head in the sand. Even if we do nothing to phase out coal exports, our customers will. The Europeans are already talking about sanctions and restrictions on coal imports. The issue is not just what we think the future of coal is, but what our customers think the future is. Business in Europe is not going to accept the Australian government freeloading with coal," Senator Brown said.

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has called on NSW Premier Morris Iemma to meet with
Professor Tim Flannery to discuss the future of the coal industry. "The best thing Mr Iemma could do ... is to announce an end to coal exports and no new coal projects. Voters are looking for leadership and real solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time ... to move past the coal age. A good place to start would be to talk with Professor Flannery," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The links between the expansion of the coal industry and global warming are beginning to resonate with the electorate. We can have a win for the environment and for jobs by phasing out coal. Generating a unit of energy from wind power creates about four times the number of jobs as coal. The Greens are working with a range of community groups to plan for a just transition from the era of coal to a renewable and energy efficient future," said Ms Rhiannon.

Others are saying Professor Flannery should address Parliament about his proposal for solar-thermal geothermal energy to replace the dirty coal industry. WA Rights group Project SafeCom said "Mr Howard stumbles around in Parliament like a greedy child in a pitch-dark school tuck shop on environmental issues, and that Mr Howard can only do what he thinks is best - and that is to support his 20th Century friends in the coal industry."

"The Prime Minister either has no idea that solar technology already can supply all base load energy for Australia's energy needs, or - more likely - that he tries to hide these options at all costs, even showing that he and his government is prepared to lie about the baseload generation capacity of these technologies. Tim Flannery can wake them up, and make them think clearly again. He should be given the opportunity to make his case in Parliament in a joint sitting of both Houses." Mr Smit said.

Greens climate change and energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said Labor's refusal to accept that coal is part of the greenhouse problem shows it has failed to come to terms with climate change and the actions needed to combat it.

"The Australian Labor Party cannot expect to be taken seriously on climate change while it adopts the coal industry's line that exporting fossil fuels to power the world is of no consequence for global warming," Senator Milne said in Canberra. "Australia under the Howard government has spent 11 years evading its international responsibility to help reduce emissions while making handsome profits from selling coal. We have plenty of other options, including solar thermal power, wind, biomass and geothermal. It's time to get on with creating more jobs and wealth from building these industries."

Meanwhile, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which represents coal miners, declared its support for establishing a carbon market. "Coal miners have voted to support carbon trading and, frankly, it is a disgrace that the Howard government has taken 10 years to even start talking about it," CFMEU president Tony Maher told the ABC. The prime minister disagreed. "Union leaders don't necessarily speak for workers," Mr Howard told parliament. For the last 10 years, a lot of coal miners have voted for us."

Mr Howard said coal-fired power stations were a very cheap source of energy in this country, and Australia was the largest coal exporter in the world. Ignoring the benefits and availability of Renewable energy, Mr Howard said as "clean" coal became more expensive, we could then start to look at nuclear power. "At the moment nuclear power is not economic, compared to dirty coal. But if you apply new technology to that, the cleaner technology becomes dearer and make nuclear power economically more feasible."

Professor Flannery said that in the future, coal would be seen as just as dangerous as asbestos is now. "As the situation unfolds and the matters get more critical, the world is not going to allow people to pollute our common atmosphere, as occurs at the moment," he told ABC. Dr Flannery said solar thermal and geothermal technologies could form the basis of meeting Australia's energy needs and they were better options than nuclear power.

His comments were immediately dismissed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, who said money would be better spent on developing technologies to clean up coal production.

Meanwhile, Beach Petroleum last month announced a $30 million investment in Petratherm's hot-rock project in South Australia. If successful, the project will supply electricity to the Beverley uranium mine and eventually link to the national grid. Petratherm is also working to help China establish its geothermal potential.

The Earth's atmosphere is not as big as many assume it is, for example, it is much smaller than the ocean. Professor Flannery says our thin atmosphere is about one 500th the size of the ocean.

He says "that explains why we've had three atmospheric emergencies, if you want, through my lifetime, you know. We had acid rain, then we had the hole in the ozone layer and now we’ve got greenhouse gases and climate change. We haven’t yet precipitated a global oceanic pollution crisis. It is not that we don't throw rubbish into the oceans, it’s just that the oceans are so much bigger."

--

Coal exports earned the nation $25 billion last year. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, coal mining employs 28,300 workers. Over the last 12 months, employment growth was over 299,000.

SOURCES:
PM fights Flannery at coalface - February 8, 2007 News Ltd
PM, Flannery clash on coal industry - February 8, 2007 SMH
Brown back eventual coal export ban - February 8, 2007 The Australian
Flannery should address solar-thermal power - February 8, 2007 SCOOP
Labor's climate policy in tatters over coal exports - February 8, 2007 Greens Media Release
oyce blasts Greens over coal exports- February 9, 2007 The West
Coal will be the new asbestos, says Flannery - February 9, 2007 SMH
The Australian Editorial: Keeping the message cool on climate - February 9, 2007
ABC LATELINE Tim Flannery

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

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

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

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

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

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