August 8th, 2006
The Howard government presents so many targets for people seeking social justice. Thanks to all of you who’ve come here today to enumerate them. I’m here for all those reasons, but one of my primary concerns is the inroads that the Howard govt is giving the nuclear industry in this country.
With dollar signs in their eyes, the Howard govt has told the world that Australia is ‘open for business’ for uranium mining. They’re talking up nuclear power as a mad-man’s solution to climate change, and nuclear waste dumps on indigenous lands. They’re already irradiating our food and letting nuclear powered vessels carrying nuclear weapons enter our ports and train here. There vision is for a landscape littered with nuclear reactors, polluting uranium mines and nuclear waste barrelling down our highways and through our suburbs while we sleep. These things have been done against the will of the people, of the states and as usual, without the consent of indigenous people.
This week they stage a protest outside the Lucas Heights reactor, many thousand of kilometres from the proposed destination of it’s waste. The Central Land Council is completely against it, saying it will threaten their way of life. This week the Howard govt, true to form, introduced the
Radioactive Waste Management Bill - overturning their previous decision to consult indigenous people over the site of a proposed nuclear waste dump in the NT. The fact is, the govt will never find a place that wants to live next to a nuclear waste dump. There is no ‘state of the art’ guaranteed safe storage site.
Perhaps the most insane suggestions emanating from a govt known for radical ideas that threaten social and environmental health, the science minister Brendan Nelson, is pushing for nuclear power. He says we willhave nuclear power plants withint 20 years. All but the most fatalistic profiteers would accept that this is legitimate solution to climate change. No, it’s not safe. Nuclear power plants are replete with small accidents and leaks, they’ve been linked to cancers in the communities that live near them.
But importantly, nuclear power is no solution to climate change either for two important reasons: electricity provision accounts for only 15% of world GHG emissions! Nuclear power wont’ stop deforestation, car pollution or cows farting! And secondly: it actually contributes to climate change – the mining, processing, enrichment and transportation of uranium is energy intensive and done with fossil fuels. There are so many other reasons why it’s unviable economically and socially, but these are the biggest holes in the argument.
Still , they are going gung-ho on uranium mining. With dollar signs in their eyes, the federal govt have recently permitted the expansion of the Roxby Downs mine, which already uses 60 million gallons of water a day. With the US and China the biggest buyers of Australian uranium, Alexander downer’s claim that we can monitor the use of our uranium is laughable. It will be used, directly or indirectly in the production of nuclear weapons. The Australian govt are now implicated in nuclear weapons proliferation. But that comes as no surprise to peace activists, who note the increased US military presence in Australia and the military nuclear devices that come with them.
Australians don’t want to live in a nuclearised state, with the increase threats of contamination, accidents and weapons in our midst. QLD anti-nulcear, environment and Peace groups have recenly convened the QLD Anti-Nuclear Alliance. If you interested in getting involved why not come to our public meeting this Sunday, November 13, at 1pm, at the offices of Senator Andrew Bartlett in Brusnwick st. see me later for more info.
Thanks for listening.
speech given at anti-howard protest
Categories: environment, war & peace |
Tags: nuclear, uranium | No Comments
November 15th, 2005
With firm control of the Senate, the Howard government is set to bring in many unpopular changes that do not auger well for the future social and environmental sustainability of our country. One of these is the gradual ‘nuclearisation’ of the military and industry, in line with increase trade with the pro-nuclear United States, who currently buys almost half of the uranium mined in Australia. This nuclearisation is making itself felt in many sectors: mining, power provision, military, and even in the irradiation of food, sometimes done with the full approval of the opposition at state and federal levels. Current claims to cure climate change with nuclear power as the sustainable option are fallacious and dangerous for long term sustainability.
What is sustainability?
The much quoted Brundtland Report (1987) defines sustainability as: “Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” For my purposes, sustainability needs to meet Brundtland’s criterion through the five fingers of sustainabilitiy: environmental, economic, political, social and technological. The nuclear power industry fails them all.
Can nuclear power be sustainable?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear regulator, produce a leaflet Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development where they outline the arguments that are now familiar as those being voiced by the Federal government. That publication continues the now familiar myth that nuclear power can be environmentally beneficial. But can we really trust an organisation dedicated to selling non-weapons uses of nuclear to give an unbiased analysis?
Environmental: While it is true that the actual power-generating part of the process is clean in that it produces no carbon dioxide emissions, the supply and disposal chain for that power is not. Nuclear power is not produced in a vacuum. It requires an extensive infrastructure including the mining industry, uranium enrichment industry, transport industry, security industry and a disposal process for the waste using massive amounts of fossil fuels. Less than one-third of the world’s CO2 emissions are generated by power stations, so dealing only with power station emission will not solve our emissions problems. Add to that the risks inherent in the waste disposal, and all you have done is heap another environmental disaster upon future generations.
The mining of uranium to provision a nuclear power industry is itself fraught with environmental problems. Currently Roxby Downs uranium mine uses 30 million litres of water a day in uranium processing, taking enourmous amounts of water out of a very dry environment, contaminating it, and leaving it radioactive in open tailings ponds.
Economic: Economically nuclear power has never made sense. Even though Australia has the world’s largest deposits of uranium, turning it into power will require huge subsidies. The US nuclear industry would not exist without them. In addition, experts estimate that our high grade uranium deposits will only last 40 years. Low grade ore will inevitably have to be used: which creates more pollution (CO2 and CFCs to process), and cost more. The short term gains we might make in mining and selling our uranium will soon dry out, leaving us with a huge mess of waste disappated across the tailings dams, defunct power plants and waste dumps it leaves behind. A mess that needs to be monitored and guarded for hundreds of years at enormous cost to future generations.
Political: Politically, the nuclear option might looks very feasible to our government. Federal Minister for Science, Brendan Nelson, says Australia will start using nuclear power within the next 50 years. However, governments decisions lead to changes in voting patterns and in recent years the Greens are making considerable ground, possibly because of the current government’s lack of environmental vision.
Social: Pouring money into a venture like nuclear power is bound to require decreased spending in other areas. The social costs of depriving health, education and social services of more funds on top of the decreased funding already experienced under ten years of a Howard government, can only be detrimental to the security of Australian society. That old furphy from the fifties, “Power too cheap to meter” has made a come-back in some pro-nuclear quarters, despite facts to the contrary. In 2004 the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Civil Engineers (RAE):
put out a paper on electricity prices suggesting that new nuclear plants could produce power far more cheaply than even coal…But, tellingly, the RAE has also told the government that it must create a market for nuclear by ensuring the “long-term stability of electricity prices”. This is shorthand for the nuclear industry’s real agenda: a new system of subsidies to ensure it is never again exposed to the chill winds of a free market. The industry even has a name for it: the Security of Supply Obligation. (Leake & Box 2005).
Technological: Decommissiong nuclear power plants (NPPs), which have an average life of about 40 years, is an expensive business too. The UK is currently decomissiong plants built in the 60s and 70s – estimated at 56 billion pounds and taking as long as 125 years. To exacerbate this problem, the only ‘in perpetuity’ storage site in the UK is in danger of flood from climate change in the next 500 years (BBC 2005).
If you’re still not convinced that nuclear power is a bad idea, take heed of the words of Mark Lesinski, an engineer given the unenviable job of securing the site of the closed Hinkley A nuclear power station, in Somerset, England. Hinkley A, like hundreds of NPPs due for decommissioning worldwide, is expected to remain a dangerous site for millions of years. Long after you and I, and our children and our children’s children’s children, are dead. He says “I’ll probably have to go and put a message to future generations inside one of the reactor buildings before we seal them up.” He hasn’t thought about what that sign might say to generations yet to come, but one of his colleagues has: “If you’ve got a problem, don’t phone me.” (Meek 2005)
Placement of nuclear facilities will always be an issue. No one in their right minds wants to live near a nuclear power plant, reactor, waste dump or on the transport route of such dangerous materials. You can bet the nuclear transport route won’t be passing Kirribilli House. There are already indications of cancer clusters in areas surrounding nuclear power plants in the UK
When the Howard government points to the ‘few’ nuclear accidents that have occurred in nuclear facilities they are only referring to the big disasters like Chernobyl in 1986 that has killed thousands in Europe (notwithstanding the IAEA’s 2005 report that “fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster,”). Accidents increase the cost of plants, with Chernobyl being estimated to have cost US$358b – greater than the value of all the nuclear power generated in the Soviet Union. The pro-nuclear lobby are ignoring the many small leaks, lost nuclear material, and accidents that occur almost daily in the world’s 440 nuclear power plants and other facilities. All potential killers, some actual killers.
___________________________________________________
FACT BOX: Nuclear Accidents Big and Small
* 1957 core fire, Windscale NPP, (UK) releases radioactiviity into environment
* 1979 Partial core meltdown, Three Mile Island NPP, Pennsylvania, US. (Before this accident, the US federal government performed strontium-90 testing of milk from cows in the areas around nuclear facilities which indicated increased strontium-90, when compared with milk from areas without nuclear facilities. Testing was abruptly stopped after the TMI accident, with no explanation.)
* 1986 Chernobyl NPP explodes killing 45 immediately, killing an estimated 35,000 with fallout and displacing half a million people. Low level radiation has caused increased non-fatal illness including immune system diseases. Almost every child in Belarus suffers this (Greenpeace Ukraine)
* 1997 Tokaimura NPP (Japan) fire exposes 37 workers to radiation
* 1999 90 tonnes of radioactive water leaks at Japanese NPP
* 1999 Tokaimura uranium enrichment plant accident in Japan kills two, irradiates hundreds.
* 2003 Bradwell NPP (UK) closed as economically unviable, amid claims by researchers of increased cancers in area linked to leaks. Cancer research also stopped at that time.
* 2003 Independent research indicates decreased infant deaths after closure of US NPPs (Mangano 2003)
* 2004 discovery that water leaking from pipelines and blowing off open-air ponds of nuclear waste at Hunterston NPP (UK) has been contaminating surrounding soil
* 2004 4 workers die at Mihama NPP (Japan) when cooling pipe explodes
* 2005 April. Leak discovered Sellafield NPP (UK)
* 2005 discovery that Lucas Heights reactor, Syndey, has been ‘leaking for years’
* 2005, 10 August. One year old Khmelnitsky NPP reactor shutdown for seventh time when turbines failed
* 2005, 11 August. Tokai NPP reactor shut down when water leaks
* 2005, 30 September. Mihama NPP (Japan) leaks radioactive coolant
* Almost every one of the 120 NPP in the US has experienced a small accident or leak of some kind.
* For a full list of nuclear mishaps see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents and www.nuclearfiles.org
______________________________________________
All uranium mines in Australia, and potentially any nuclear power plants or dumps, will be sited on indigenous lands. Kevin Buzzacott, distinguished Arabunna elder representing Kokatha land in South Australia was in recent years the subject of a nucelar waste dump proposal says: “Our land was taken by massacre and displacement. No treaties were even signed. We have never ceded out sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law we still own the land and will always oppose the radioactive waste dump.” (in Green: 1999)
In recent months a proposal to site a nuclear waste dump near Katherine and now Alice Springs in the NT was roundly rejected by the communities there. The federal government has not yet met with indigenous leaders despite invitations to do so. The federal government have already made up their minds: they will, as they have in the past, override state or territory government decisions on uranium mines and waste dumps.
Technologically, there is not yet, and may never be a failsafe way to store nuclear waste. Even if such a utopia were to exist, safe transport to that disposal site is still an issue. In the UK, there has been insecure storage of waste from power stations in urban communities for over 30 years, with no solution in sight. We hear claims that the technology to secure waste has improved, but where is it being used? Even the biggest nuclear waste facility in Yucca US, (currently not yet taking waste), is prone to accidents including earthquakes.
__________________________________________________
FACT BOX: “Orphaned Sources” are nuclear material that is lost, misplaced, thrown in the rubbish, or stolen from the world’s nuclear facilities. The US has 1,500 orpahned sources since 1996, Europe loses about 70 nuclear sources per year, a European commission estimate about 30,000 nuclear sources are at risk of becomign orphaned in Europe due to insecure storage and bad bookkeeping. These sites include radiotherapy units and irradiation facilities. There are no estimates on orphaned sources for the former USSR.
__________________________________________________
Other nuclear dangers to sustainability: mines, war, waste and food
The extent of our governments commitment to all things nuclear is evident in the other pro-nuclear activities it engages in.
I have already touched on some of the problems with uranium mining for the environment. However, uranium maining is inextricably linked to war. The Federal governments uranium mining policy claims to control sale of Australian uranium only for peaceful purposes. Dr Jim Green, long time anti-nuke activist, spells out the lie of peaceful uses for nuclear technology:
The “peaceful” nuclear power and research sectors have produced enough fissile material to build over 160,000 nuclear weapons. Australian uranium has resulted in the production of more than 60 tonnes of plutonium, sufficient to produce about 8000 nuclear weapons. (figures updated Oct 2005 by Green 2005, by personal correspondence).
Supposedly “peaceful” nuclear facilities can be — and have been — used in various ways for weapons research and production. Of the 60 countries which have built nuclear power or research reactors, about 25 are known to have used their “peaceful” nuclear facilities for covert weapons research and/or production — a strike rate of about 40%.
Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea have succeeded in producing nuclear weapons under cover of a “peaceful” nuclear program.
In any case, we should question our governments commitment to peaceful uses of nuclear material. In June 2005 the Australian Department of Defence engaged in joint minitary training with the US at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland. The US is training Aussie troops in the use of their weapons systems, including nuclear powered vessels that may or may not be carrying nuclear weapons including missiles and weapons that utilise depleted uranium shells. Minster for Defence, Robert Hill, stated that the goal of Talisman Sabre 2005 (TS05) is increased ‘inter-operability’ with U.S. forces: this may include training in using nuclear pwered vehicles and perhaps weapons. State and Federal governments have committed to further joint exercises with the US, the next being Talisman Sabre 2007. Nuclear power vessels carrying nuclear weapons (like DU shells) make regular visits to our shores under agreements like “Sea-Swap” in Lancelin, Western Australia.
Just as Howard seeks to override state policies in other areas, the Northern Territory government was recently told that their decision to ban further uranium mining is no longer their decision. Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane declared: “The Northern Territory is open for business on uranium mining.” The mining industry must have been anticipating this, with several mining companies never ceasing their uranium exploration in the NT during this time. And today both major parties are warming to former PM Bob Hawke’s suggestion that Australia become the nuclear waste dump for the world.
The slow infiltration of nuclear into our lives has extended to food. Two years ago the Federal government permitted the use of nuclear material for the sterilisation of fresh tropical fruits, following the US trend towards an increasing range of foodstuffs being irradated in lieu of good manufacturing hygene practices. Today tropical fruits and herbal teas may be irradiated in Australia, while almost anything goes in the US including meat and school lunches. Irradiation is aproduct of the Atoms for Peace program, continuing the lie that nuclear can ever be peaceful or safe. Irradiated food has less vitamins and contains hitherto unknown radiolytic products, the safety of which have not been tested.
Where to now?
These goings on may be making some of you nervous. You may be asking just how soon will we be expecting to see nuclear power plants and truckloads of waste barrelling down our highways? Sooner than you may think.
Opposition to these various uses of nuclear materials encompasses the gambits of the peace, environment, indigenous, democratic and health interests of various progressive movements throughout Australia. Just as no one action (like changing to nuclear power) is a solve-all for climate change, the nuclear steamroller needs every one of us to act on it. It presents a huge challenge to people oppossed to all things nuclear, but what we can’t do alone we can do together!
Written by
Kim Stewart. BA, BSc (hons A)
Peace Convergence Collective
FoE Brisbane Climate Justice Collective
Food Irradiation Watch
Get involved in your local anti-nuke group:
* Peace Convergence (Brisbane) http://www.geocities.com/peaceconvergence
* Food Irradiation Watch (Brisbane) http://www.foodirradiationinfo.org
* Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition (Sydney) http://www.anti-bases.org/
* Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) http://www.mapw.org
* The Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia (Perth) http://www.anawa.org.au/
* Friends of the Earth Australia Anti-Nuclear Campaign (Melbourne) http://www.foe.org.au/nc/index.htm#nuke
* No Radioactive Waste Dump Committee (Darwin) http://www.ecnt.org/html/cur_other_toxics_nukedump.html
References
ABC Online. 2005. “Hawke’s nuclear waste idea has merit: Nelson” September 29, 2005. Online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1471422.htm
Australian Conservation Foundation 2005. “Nuclear Energy: No solution to climate change” http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=489
Australian Government. Dept Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2005. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. Nuclear Exports and Safeguards: Australia’s Uranium Exports Policy” http://www.dfat.gov.au/security/aus_uran_exp_policy.html
Australian Government. 2005. “Research Note no. 32 2004–05: Australia’s uranium after Kyoto” by Greg Baker, Statistics Section, 14 February 2005 http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn32.htm
BBC News. 2005. “Nuclear Cleanup to Cost £56b” August 11, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm
Caldicott, H. 2005 “Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution” April 13, 2005 The Australian. Online at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C12835747%5E12332%2C00.html
Diesendorf, M 2005. “Can nuclear energy reduce CO2 emissions?” Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales. Online at http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/CT_nukes_CO2.pdf
Green, J. 1999. “Radioactive Racism” Online at http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/racism.html
Green, J. 2005. “Global warming: Nuclear power no solution” in Green Left Weekly, April 13. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/622/622p9.htm
Green, J. 2005a. “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change” at Friends of the Earth Australia’s website http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm
Greenpeace, 2005 “IAEA deliberately downplays Chernobyl death toll to pave way for nuclear renaissance” Press Release, Sept 7, 2005. Online at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/chernobylforumclosingday
International Atomic Energy Agency 2002. Inadequate Control of World’s Radioactive Sources” IAEA Press Release September 2, 2002. Online at http://hps.org/documents/iaeapressrelease.pdf
Leake, J and Box, D. 2005. “When PR goes nuclear” in Australian Financial Review, May 30, 2005. Online at http://afr.com/articles/2005/05/26/1116950813750.html
Mangano, J. 2003. “Decrease in Infant Death Rates After Reactor Closings” at Radiation and Public Health Project. Online at http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/reactorclosings.html
Meek, J. 2005. “Back to the future” in The Guardian, October 4, 2005.
Online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1584356,00.html
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 2005. “Timeline of the Nuclear Age: 2005” Online at http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/2000/2005.htm
Sydney Morning Herald, August 4, 2005. “Government takes over NT’s uranium”
http://smh.com.au/news/national/government-takes-over-nts-uranium/2005/08/04/1123125844186.html?oneclick=true
Sydney Morning Herald, August 10, 2005 “Nuclear Power only natural, says Nelson” http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-only-natural-says-nelson/2005/08/10/1123353388398.html
World Nuclear Association. 2005. “Australia’s Uranium and Who Buys It”, August. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf48.htm
Categories: environment |
Tags: nuclear, uranium | No Comments
