Return
to contents
NO
NUKES NEWS 22/10/05
ALLIANCE AGAINST URANIUM
URANIUM - VARIOUS ARTICLES
SA ALP REAFFIRMS OPPOSITION
TO NEW URANIUM MINES
NT
DUMP PLAN
BEVERLEY URANIUM MINE +
EXPANSION PLANS
PROPOSALS TO SELL URANIUM TO
INDIA AND CHINA
STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO
URANIUM EXPANSION
HONEYMOON URANIUM MINE ON
HOLD
BOB HAWKE’S INTERNATIONAL
NUCLEAR DUMP PROPOSAL
ROXBY
DOWNS - WATER
KOONGARRA/KAKADU WIN
LABOR AND LABOUR DIVIDED ON
NUKES
DIRTY BOMB THREAT +
PROLIFERATION RISKS
NUCLEAR POWER NO SOLUTION TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION
--------------------->
ALLIANCE AGAINST URANIUM
--------------------->
Alliance Against
Uranium Meeting Statement
Quorn, South Australia,
September 17-18, 2005
The meeting was
attended by representatives of the Adnyamathanha, Kokatha Moola,
Warlpiri, Anmatyere, Kungarakun and Gurindji nations and Friends of the
Earth, Australian Conservation Foundation, Medical Association for the
Prevention of War, Mineral Policy Institute, Campaign Against Nuclear
Dumping (SA), Australian Student Environment Network and the
Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia.
The Alliance meeting
opposed plans to dump nuclear waste in the Northern Territory and
addressed the strong concerns held over uranium mining and the risks of
radiation.
The meeting reaffirmed
the right of this and future generations to a clean environment.
The meeting supported
the right of indigenous people to have
- clean water and safe
bush tucker
- strong culture and
healthy communities
- protection for their
sacred lands and burial grounds
The meeting called on
the Federal Government to respect these things and to not force nuclear
projects on unwilling communities.
The meeting shared
information between people with experience of uranium mining and others
who are now facing these questions. The meeting maintained that prior
consultation and informed group consent is essential when considering
nuclear projects.
The meeting
participants committed to share information and stories and to build
the links between their groups and peoples to reduce nuclear risks to
people and country.
Alliance Against
Uranium meeting statement, 17-18 September 2005, Quorn, Nukunu Country,
South Australia
--------------------->
Green-Black Alliance
reborn in Quorn
By Joel Catchlove
19 September 2005
As Australia's uranium
industry looks to expansion and the nuclear power debate ricochets
around parliaments across the nation, Indigenous groups and
environmental organisations concerned about the nuclear industry's
destructive impacts met in Quorn, in South Australia's southern
Flinders Ranges.
Held over the 17-18
September, it was the first meeting of the Alliance Against Uranium
since 2001, and a determined movement to return the social and cultural
impacts of the nuclear industry to the current debate. The meeting was
attended by representatives from the Adnyamathanha, Kokatha Moola,
Warlpiri, Anmatyere, Kungkarakun and Gurindji nations, encompassing
traditional lands stretching from Rum Jungle, near Darwin, through
central Australia to as far south as the Kokatha Moola lands at the
head of South Australia's Spencer Gulf. The representatives discussed
their concerns with delegates from Friends of the Earth, the Australian
Conservation Foundation, the Medical Association for the Prevention of
War, Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia, the Campaign Against
Nuclear Dumping, Australian Student Environment Network, and the
Mineral Policy Institute.
The nations present
represented a spectrum of experience with the nuclear industry, from
the Adnyamathanha, Kokatha Moola and Kungkarakun who continue to deal
with ongoing legacy and presence of the Beverley, Roxby Downs and Rum
Jungle uranium mines, to the central Australian nations who are under
increasing pressure to open their lands to uranium exploration
companies. Among those in attendance was senior Kokatha Moola woman and
recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize, Mrs. Eileen Wani
Wingfield. Mrs. Wingfield has experienced the legacy of the nuclear
industry on her country throughout her life, witnessing the fallout of
the Maralinga atomic tests in the 1950s and 60s and campaigning against
the establishment and expansion of BHP Billiton's Roxby Downs uranium
mine on her traditional lands. In more recent years, Mrs. Wingfield was
a member of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, whose Irati Wanti ('the poison,
leave it') campaign was central in halting the Federal Government's
plans to dump nuclear waste in South Australia. It was for this work
especially that she received the Goldman, the 'Nobel Prize' for
Environment.
Members of the
Adnyamathanha, Kokatha Moola and Kungkarakan nations expressed their
continued opposition to uranium mining on their land, describing how
Native Title law has been used to divide their communities and open
their countries to the nuclear industry. Overwhelmingly among these
representatives, Native Title has completely failed to protect the
rights and culture of Indigenous groups, instead being twisted to serve
the desires of uranium miners. Adnyamathanha representatives described
the tactics of mining companies in targeting 'people who need quick
cash' to become Native Title claimants for a region, yet who do not
represent the wishes of the whole community. The companies are adept at
exploiting existing tensions within Indigenous communities, promising
copious financial benefits to those willing to support the mining
companies objectives.
'It's all money talk,
but money doesn't talk. If we let our land get ripped up, then we‚ll
have nothing,' cited one Adnyamathanha woman, who declined to be named.
When dissent occurs within the community, the mining company can be
ruthless in its response.
'When you stand up for
your country, they put you down. They disgrace you in front of your
mob,' she said. Indeed, public meetings leading up to the establishment
of Heathgate Resources‚ Beverley Uranium Mine was marred by the violent
suppression of dissent against the miner's plans. On one occasion,
Adnyamathanha who requested that the meeting be chaired by someone from
the floor were physically removed from the meeting by the police.
Perhaps most notoriously, in May 2000, SA's STAR Force paramilitary
police responded brutally to a peaceful protest at the mine site,
including the pepper spraying of an 11 year old Adnyamathanha girl.
'Have a really good
look at the little black writing on the paper,' advised one
Adnyamathanha woman, 'Read what you sign, please. Don't get ripped off.
You‚ve only got one country.'
Kokatha Moola
representative Sue Haseldine was more emphatic, 'Don't sign
anything. [If you sign] they‚ll get you one way or the other.'
While some Indigenous
representatives acknowledged the value of Native Title as a way of
legally acknowledging access to the land for hunting, bush tucker and
practising traditional ways of life, they emphasised that it was 'not
for mining agreements'. For others, it is deeply insulting that the
legal system demands they prove their custodianship and connection with
the land that their people have held for tens of thousands of years.
'If we have to prove
our connection with the land, then so should the government. So should
the Queen if they say it belongs to the Crown. It's not ours to give
and not theirs to take,' said Ms. Haseldine.
Representatives from
central Australian nations attended the meeting to gather information
in view of their own nations‚ growing popularity with uranium
prospectors. For these nations, the potential remains to reconcile the
suggested financial benefits of uranium mining and its implications of
securing an economic future for subsequent generations with the very
real risks of legacies of health problems and contaminated land. For
the people of this region, in which dust storms are not uncommon and
for whom hunting and bush tucker gathering remain significant, the
entering of radioactive matter into the food chain through water or
dust and an increased presence of radon gas from mining elicited
particular concern. Likewise, certainty that natural springs will not
be polluted or depleted by uranium mining activities is also essential.
One of the meeting's
central issues was the Federal Government's determination to site a
national radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory, despite
Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell's 'absolute categorical
assurance' that NT would not be selected for a nuclear dumping ground.
Indigenous groups have already commenced building their campaign
against the dump and used the meeting to gather national support for
their actions.
--------------------->
URANIUM - VARIOUS ARTICLES
--------------------->
Uranium battles loom
large
Jim Green
October 2005
Despite the
open-slather uranium mining policy of the Liberal/National Coalition
government, just one new uranium mine has begun production in the past
decade. The Beverley mine in South Australia, which began commercial
production in 2001, produces about 10% of Australia’s uranium exports,
with Ranger in the NT and Roxby Downs in SA producing the rest.
The Beverley mine uses
an in-situ leach mining method which involves dumping liquid nuclear
waste into groundwater with no rehabilitation. Mining company
Heathgate’s ‘consultation’ with the Adnyamathanha traditional owners
has been selective and inadequate. Heathgate even stooped to employing
a private investigator to infiltrate environment groups. Now Heathgate
is looking to expand its operations and is involved in exploration
across 4,600 sq kms of SA.
Traditional owners and
environmental groups have enjoyed some major victories over the past
decade. The Jabiluka mine in the NT was stopped. The federal government
has effectively ruled out uranium mining at Koongarra in the Kakadu
National Park.
The Labor Party has
been held to its policy of no new uranium mines despite pressure from
within and without. In October 2005, the SA Labor government reaffirmed
its opposition to new uranium mines. In WA, the Labor government
opposes uranium mining and plans to enshrine that opposition in
legislation. In Queensland, the Labor government opposes uranium
mining, albeit on the questionable rationale that uranium exports would
undermine the coal export industry. The federal ALP maintains a policy
of no new uranium mines though this may be challenged at the ALP
Convention in 2007.
Now the federal
Coalition government has embarked on its strongest push yet to expand
uranium mining. A sham parliamentary inquiry has been established to
promote uranium mining. The government has also established a steering
committee tasked with removing obstacles to expanded uranium mining.
The federal government has seized control of uranium mining
authorisation in the NT. The 2003 Non-Proliferation Legislation
Amendment Act had nothing to do with non-proliferation; it is designed
to target and intimidate protesters and whistle-blowers.
The reasons to oppose
uranium mining are as compelling as ever. The pattern of radioactive
racism persists, with Indigenous communities repeatedly subjected to
threats and thuggery, divide-and-rule tactics, and bribery. The racism
is also evident with radioactive waste dumping. First came the failed
attempt to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Kokatha land in SA.
Now the plan is to impose a dump on Indigenous communities in the NT,
with the government currently pushing through legislation to over-ride
Aboriginal Heritage Protection and Native Title laws.
The environmental
impacts of uranium mining are staggering in their proportions, not
least at Roxby Downs which produces 10 million tonnes of radioactive
tailings annually with no long-term plans for its management. The Roxby
expansion plan envisages a dramatic increase in the water take from the
Great Artesian Basin though the precious Mound Springs have already
been adversely effected and in some cases ruined.
A further concern is
that the current regulatory environment for uranium mining is
inadequate. For example, the Olympic Dam mine enjoys a range of
exemptions from the South Australian Environmental Protection Act, the
Water Resources Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the Freedom of
Information Act. While the SA Labor government opposes new uranium
mines, it fully supports plans to make Roxby Downs the biggest uranium
mine in the world by tripling production. Liberal and Labor both voted
for the exemptions to the Aboriginal Heritage Act in the late 1990s.
The 2003 Senate
References and Legislation Committee report into the regulation of
uranium mining in Australia reported "a pattern of under-performance
and non-compliance", it identified "many gaps in knowledge and found an
absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of
contamination or its impact on the environment", and it concluded that
changes were necessary "in order to protect the environment and its
inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage".
The problems don’t end
at the mine sites. Australian uranium is converted into high-level
nuclear waste in nuclear power reactors around the world, yet there is
still not a single repository anywhere in the world for the disposal of
high-level waste from nuclear power. There is increasing talk of
Australia becoming the world’s nuclear waste dump.
Australian uranium has
led to the production of over 80 tonnes of plutonium in nuclear
reactors around the world - enough for 8,000 nuclear weapons - yet it
is universally acknowledged that the international ‘safeguards’ system
is fundamentally flawed and limited.
Australia's uranium
mining industry may expand with proposed exports to China. China is a
nuclear weapons state with no intention of fulfilling its
Non-Proliferation Treaty disarmament obligations. The Chinese regime
also refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Proponents of
uranium sales to China overlook the fundamental difficulty of assuring
peaceful uses of Australian uranium in a closed and secretive society.
It is difficult to imagine a nuclear industry worker in China publicly
raising safety, security or proliferation concerns without reprisal.
Another concern is that Australian uranium sales will free up China’s
limited uranium reserves for weapons production.
Australia’s uranium
exports already contribute to proliferation problems and risks:
* Why does the
government allow uranium sales to Japan given the regional tensions
arising from Japan's plutonium program and its status as a 'threshold'
or 'breakout' state capable of producing nuclear weapons in a short
space of time?
* Why does the
government allow uranium sales to South Korea when only last year it
was revealed that numerous nuclear weapons research projects were
secretly carried out there from 1979 until 2000, in violation of the
country's NPT obligations?
* Why does the
government allow uranium sales to the US, the UK and France – nuclear
weapons states which are failing to fulfil their NPT disarmament
obligations?
Then a young and
principled ALP researcher (and now the pro-uranium SA Premier), Mike
Rann pinpointed the problem in 1982 when he wrote: "Again and again, it
has been demonstrated here and overseas that when problems over
safeguards prove difficult, commercial considerations will come first.”
The campaigns against
Jabiluka, and against the planned national nuclear waste dump in SA,
were successful because exscellent coalitions of Indigenous people and
environmentalists developed. To further develop those relationships,
Friends of the Earth has helped to relaunch the Alliance Against
Uranium. The Alliance met in north SA on September 17-18, bringing
together over 70 people from most Australian states, the majority being
representatives of Indigenous communities being targeted by the uranium
industry.
It’s a crucial period
for the movement for a nuclear-free Australia. If you’d like to get
involved, contact FoE campaigners Michaela Stubbs in Melbourne, 0437
757 362, <[email protected]>, or Jim Green in Adelaide,
0417 318368, <[email protected]>.
Better active today
than radioactive tomorrow!
--------------------->
Global uranium
exploration spend to hit $US185m
Ben Sharples
Wednesday, October 12,
2005
THE number of players
searching for the hottest commodity in town has surged
exponentially over the past two years, with expenditure on
uranium exploration in Australia expected to triple this year.
During a speech at the
Australian Uranium Conference in Fremantle yesterday, Cameco
Australia's exploration manager Ron Matthews said over the past
two years 65 players had joined in the hunt for yellowcake in
Australia.
"In 2003 just five
companies were actively exploring, 15 in 2004, and today over
70," Matthews said. "There has been incredible growth over the
last twelve months [in Australia] with roughly 283 active projects."
On the exploration
expenditure front, Matthews said despite tapering off during the
late 1980s and 90s, an increasing spot price had perked people's
interest with worldwide expenditure expected to hit $US185
million in 2005, up from $US55 million in 2000, and expenditure in
Australia expected to triple on last year's figure to $40 million.
Matthews also gave an
insight into what it costs to get a successful mining operation
off the ground - based on the Canadian experience – indicating
the cost of finding and economic discovery was in the order of
$C65 million ($A73.5 million) to $C90 million, taking around 25
years from discovery to first production.
© 2005
MiningNews.net - www.miningnews.net
--------------------->
Uranium security to be
tightened
By Brendan Nicholson
Defence Correspondent
October 11, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/uranium-security-to-be-tightened/2005/10/10/1128796469464.html>
SECURITY is being
tightened around Australia's uranium production to prevent terrorists
stealing nuclear material.
A new report on
Australia's role in preventing the development of weapons of mass
destruction says ASIO this year completed a comprehensive risk review
of uranium mines and transportation.
The report says ASIO
found no significant shortcomings but said "some strengthening
measures" were envisaged.
Launching the report,
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday there was a real risk
that terrorists could acquire weapons of mass destruction.
"We know that a number
of terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, are seeking nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons — and that in our own region, groups like Jemaah
Islamiah have similar ambitions."
Mr Downer said Osama
bin Laden had declared openly that he would use such weapons if he had
them and Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah,
recently stated that the use of nuclear weapons was justified "if
necessary".
"We know all too sadly
the deadly effect of Jemaah Islamiah's homemade bombs, but can we
conceive the devastation were they ever to get their hands on weapons
of mass destruction?" Mr Downer said.
"The terrorist menace
makes our efforts to address illicit WMD trade all the more urgent."
He said transnational
terrorists would not be deterred from using WMD by the threat of
massive retaliation.
He said terrorists were
undeterred by constraints such as deterrence, to which even maverick
states could be subjected.
"The only real
constraints on terrorists are the resources at their disposal to kill,"
he said.
Mr Downer said a
handful of rogue states were putting the nonproliferation regime under
pressure. To make the situation more worrying, Mr Downer said, the
number of countries with ballistic missile capability had increased
more than threefold to 29 since 1972.
--------------------->
SA ALP REAFFIRMS OPPOSITION
TO NEW URANIUM MINES
--------------------->
Good news, woohoo
The SA ALP State
Conference on 8-9 October 2005 passed a policy commitment for the ALP
"to continue to oppose the establishment of any new uranium mine in SA"
formally binding (as part of the "SA Platform for Government") the ALP
government for their next (highly likely) 2006-10 term of office.
This is great - over 20
uranium exploration projects in SA and the proposed Honeymoon uranium
mine have zero potential for commmercialisation to mining prior to
2010 at the earliest, providing significent relief
for traditional owner communities under pressure from uranium
companies and projects.
It also makes it
somewhat easier to fight off uranium mine plans in WA and NT against
uranium, and it will help keep the federal ALP to its no-new-U-mine
policy at the early 2007 ALP National Convention.
The ALP Conference also
passed two other Motions:
"State Labor Convention
urges the SA Labor Government to apply the strictest environmental
conditions for uranium mining." (Can be used for some leverage re
Roxby, particularly for protection of the Great Artesian Basin and
Mound Springs, and on groundwater impacts and requirement for
rehabilitation at Beverley acid leach uranium mine.)
The other Motion called
on the Resources Minister to investigate and report back on application
in SA of the recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation
Risk to significently lower the legal limits on worker exposure to
ionising radiation exposure in uranium mining.
--------------------->
Uranium debate hits the
value of shares
By KARA PHILLIPS and
CAMERON ENGLAND
15oct05
The Advertiser
THE value of share
market-listed companies searching for uranium in South Australia has
plummeted over the past week, largely due to the SA Government's
contradictory stance on uranium mining.
The Rann Government
last week endorsed the federal Labor Party's no-new-mines policy,
despite having subsidised the exploration costs of uranium companies
over the past year through its Plan for Accelerated Exploration.
Debate between
conservation groups and explorers continued to heat up and rattled
investors put a dent in the share prices of explorers, such as
Adelaide-based Curnamona Energy and New South Wales-based PepinNini
Minerals. Curnamona shares fell from 66c Monday to 57c yesterday,
PepinNini was off from 46.5c to 38c while Adelaide-based Marathon
Resources fell from 54.5c to 44c.
Curnamona chairman Bob
Johnson said exploration investments - including $25.5 million raised
by five companies in 2005 to search for more uranium in SA - were not
in vain.
He said Australia had
the world's biggest known reserves of uranium and lashed out at
conservationists, claiming nuclear power was "the way of the future ...
at the end of the day no amount of windmills will provide the power we
need.
"Uranium can help
reduce global warming and is the safest industry on earth."
However, Australian
Conservation Foundation campaigner David Noonan said uranium did not
have a future in this state and called on the Government to scrap the
PACE subsidy, calling it "an irresponsible waste of public funds".
--------------------->
URANIUM DEBATE: Fears
of Labor standing firm
By MANDI ZONNEVELDT and
MEREDITH BOOTH
The Advertiser
12oct05
MORE than $12 million
dropped from the value of Adelaide-based uranium explorers yesterday.
This follows the state
Labor Party's decision at its weekend annual conference to continue
opposing proposals for new uranium mines.
However, federal
Opposition resources spokesman Martin Ferguson yesterday gave the
strongest indication yet that the Labor Party would reconsider its
opposition.
He told the Australian
Uranium Conference in Fremantle that Australia had a responsibility to
provide a clean, safe source of energy to the rest of the world.
"Whether we like it or not, Australia is undeniably part of the global
nuclear cycle," Mr Ferguson said.
"The reality is that we
as a nation have to face up to our responsibilities sooner rather than
later, the responsibilities that come with being the owners of globally
important nuclear energy resources."
Seven SA-registered
uranium explorers lost a collective $12.2 million from their market
values yesterday. Pepinnini, Curnamona and Marathon Resources took the
brunt of selling, falling in value by between 17 and 18 per cent.
"The market really
knocked the stuffing out of them," Ord Minnett client adviser Tony Catt
said.
Shares in Southern Gold
and recently listed Monax fell by 10 per cent and 8 per cent
respectively while Minotaur Exploration and Hindmarsh Resources had
falls of up to 6 per cent.
Macquarie Financial
Services division director Paul Kirchner said the SA Labor Party's
re-affirmation of opposition to uranium mining was contrary to what the
market had expected, which was more dialogue within all political
parties.
State Mineral Resources
Development Minister Paul Holloway said any threat to uranium
exploration in SA was unlikely.
"The decision of the
state ALP platform convention maintains the status quo in SA," he said.
"There are no new
uranium mines in SA that are imminent, or likely to be affected by the
policy, before the issue is considered at the federal level of the ALP
in 2007."
SA Chamber of Mines and
Energy chief executive Phillip Sutherland said yesterday he was
confident of continued SA Government support for uranium exploration
and also noted the plan for discussion of the no-new-mines policy at
the federal conference of the ALP in 2007.
The Association of
Mining and Exploration Companies yesterday called for the formation of
a new, industry-based lobby group to drive the debate.
--------------------->
ALP promise nukes
explorers
Kevin Andrusiak and
Nigel Wilson
October 12, 2005
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16890394%255E643,00.html>
SHARE prices in uranium
explorers with South Australian tenements took a beating yesterday
after the state's ALP Government confirmed its commitment to block new
uranium mines.
A favourite speculative
sector for traders who have reaped big windfalls as the price of
yellowcake continues to climb, uranium stocks were rattled as investors
contemplated delays in mining starts at some projects.
A South Australian ALP
conference endorsed a motion on the weekend that read: "Labor continues
to be opposed to the establishment of any new uranium mines and any
expansion in the enrichment process."
Federal Resources
Minister Ian Macfarlane said the decision was confusing to investors.
"The state Labor Party
is now turning their backs on investors and employees in an industry
which the Rann Government has so openly encouraged and supported," he
said.
Labor's federal
resources spokesman Martin Ferguson told a uranium conference in Perth
yesterday that Australia must accept the responsibility of having the
world's biggest known reserves of uranium and urgently develop a
strategic vision for its exploitation.
South Australian
Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway said he would
support a review of the ALP's "no new uranium mines" policy at the next
federal conference, but rejected any idea of a shift in sentiment by
his party.
"The decision of the
state ALP Platform Convention maintains the status quo in South
Australia," Mr Holloway said.
"There are no new
uranium mines in South Australia that are imminent, or likely to be
affected by the policy before the issue is considered at a federal
level of the ALP in 2007."
Mr Holloway said the
weekend decision would not stop the planned expansion of BHP Billiton's
Olympic Dam mine, which would create more than 10,000 jobs during the
construction phase and more than 8000 jobs when expansion was completed.
But the news rattled
investors.
Newly listed PepinNini
and Marathon Resources retreated more than 17 per cent each, Hindmarsh
Resources lost 6 per cent and Curnomona Energy declined 18 per cent.
Redport chairman
Richard Homsany said the industry was confident uranium mining rules
would soon be relaxed.
Redport was one of the
few stocks to post only a moderate loss, down 2 per cent. It holds four
tenements in Western and South Australia and has a drill campaign
planned for South Australia this year.
"The South Australian
decision would only be a short-term obstacle," he said.
"Its position could
just be a lot of posturing at the moment
"It is not going to
stop us putting money into exploration.
"We have to take the
long-term view that one day policy settings will coincide to open up
for uranium mining."
--------------------->
Raisings at risk in
mine ban fallout
The Australian ,
Business P.1
Nigel Wilson, Energy
writer
October 11, 2005
MILLIONS of dollars in
capital raisings for uranium floats in South Australia are under a
cloud following the State ALP's unannounced decision to block new
uranium mines in the State.
South Australia, which
houses two of the three operating uranium mines in the country, was the
state that was expected to be the most liberal in its approach to
uranium mining in the current debate about increasing Australia's
uranium exports.
State Premier Mike Rann
supports uranium mining for its contribution to the South Australian
economy.
But at the weekend the
South Australian Labor Party conference strengthened opposition to
expanding uranium mining.
The conference
endorsed, unanimously and without debate, a platform motion that says:
"Labor continues to be opposed to the establishment of any new uranium
mines and any expansion into the enrichment process."
In 2005, five companies
have raised a total of $25.5 million from the sharemarket to finance
the search for uranium in South Australia, their share prices rising
strongly since listing.
The Australian
Conservation Foundation, which had campaigned for the ban, yesterday
welcomed the move. ACF nuclear campaigner David Noonan said the ALP
platform would end speculation South Australia would encourage new
mines.
"The outcome is that
uranium speculators in SA - and their investors - can now have zero
confidence in any commercialisation till at least 2010, if ever.
"What this does is
clearly show investors in uranium floats in this state have wasted
their money," Mr Noonan said.
There was no chance new
mines would now proceed, even though the policy did not affect the two
existing mines.
Mr Noonan called on the
South Australian Government to stop subsidising exploration for
uranium, saying this policy - which gives some explorers a 50 per cent
rebate on drilling costs - was a waste of public resources, in light of
the ALP platform.
The South Australian
ALP move comes as the party nationally is increasingly riven by
cross-factional attempts to overthrow its three mines policy, which has
operated since 1983.
Federal resources
shadow Martin Ferguson, who supports the issue being debated at the
party's national conference next year, is in Perth to speak to a
uranium conference today.
WA Premier Geoff Gallop
is strongly opposed to the move but has been unable to stop the issue
being placed on the WA ALP conference agenda next month.
Last month Queensland
Premier Peter Beattie rejected a suggestion by party broker Bill Ludwig
that the three mines policy should be expanded.
Mr Beattie said uranium
was a major competitor to coal, and encouraging uranium mining would
undermine the wealth of Queensland.
The SA move also
included the statement that:
"Labor strongly opposes
the location of a national radioactive waste repository in South
Australia.
"Given the grave
concerns raised by the 2003 Senate Committee on the uranium industry in
Australia about the practice of in situ leaching, Labor will ensure
there is monitoring of the environmental impact of the in situ leaching
method.
"Under Labor, uranium
mining has become subject to the scrutiny of the Environmental
Protection Authority. Labor also introduced revised reporting
arrangements for spills at uranium mines. These regimes will be
maintained."
The platform binds an
ALP state government until 2010.
Political analysts last
night said that with a State election scheduled for March, the ALP
wanted to avoid a public clash over uranium.
--------------------->
Plea to stop subsidies
for uranium exploration
By LAURA ANDERSON
11oct05
<www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16878244%255E2682,00.html>
ENVIRONMENTAL groups
have called on the State Government to stop providing subsidies for
uranium exploration after it endorsed a no new mines policy.
The Labor Party's
platform, released at the weekend, states the ALP will "be opposed to
the establishment of any new uranium mines".
It also states, due to
"grave concerns" raised by a Senate committee, that Labor "will ensure
there is monitoring of the environmental impact of the in-situ leaching
method".
Environmental groups
have welcomed the ongoing formal commitment to no new mines, saying it
is a "very positive and very welcome" move that binds the Government
until 2010.
However, they have
called on the Government to stop providing subsidies for uranium
exploration. Under the Government's Plan for Accelerating Exploration,
introduced in April 2004, selected exploration projects receive
dollar-for-dollar support.
Opposition mineral
resources spokesman Mitch Williams said there "should be capacity for
new uranium mines in the state". "The future of SA depends on our
ability to grow the mining sector," he said.
He said the Government
had continually changed their stance on uranium mining.
"The whole thing is an
absolute mess," he said.
Premier Mike Rann and
Treasurer Kevin Foley have both previously called for Federal Labor's
three-mines uranium policy to be abolished.
--------------------->
Labor backs away from
tighter uranium mining regulations
Last Update: Sunday,
October 9, 2005.
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1477830.htm>
The South Australian
Labor Party has watered down a motion to tighten regulations for
uranium mining.
The ALP's state
convention yesterday agreed to urge the Government to apply the
strictest environmental conditions on uranium mining.
But delegates stopped
short of endorsing a motion by Labor MP Frances Bedford to tighten the
regulation of uranium mining.
Premier Mike Rann and
Treasurer Kevin Foley have indicated their support for increased
uranium mining in South Australia but Ms Bedford is cautious.
"We understand that
uranium mining is going to be expanded, there's not a lot we can do
about that, but what we need to make sure is that it's done in the most
responsible and sustainable way possible," she said.
--------------------->
NT DUMP PLAN
--------------------->
Walk in the sand with
us, traditional owners urge PM
Last Update: Tuesday,
October 4, 2005. 2:04pm (AEST)
<www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1474339.htm>
Local opposition: The
Athenge Lhere say a visit would help politicians appreciate their
country.
Traditional owners of
land near Alice Springs earmarked for a national nuclear waste dump
have called for the Prime Minister and Science Minister to visit the
area and meet with them.
The Athenge Lhere group
are traditional owners of the Mount Everard site, which is north of
Alice Springs.
It is one of three
sites in the Northern Territory being considered by the Federal
Government for the dump.
Kathleen Martin
Williams, who is one of the traditional owners, says a visit may help
the ministers understand the community's reservations.
"I'd like Johnny Howard
and his sidekicks, especially that [Education Minister] Brendan Nelson,
to come here take off their shoes and walk in the red sand with us,"
she said.
"Maybe they will
appreciate our country. Maybe."
The Northern
Territory's Environment Minister, Marion Scrymgour, says she told the
Athenge Lhere group this morning that the Territory Government strongly
opposes the dump.
Ms Scrymgour says the
traditional owners' opposition to a dump being placed on their country
is just as legitimate as any resident in urban Australia.
"A lot of the
traditional owners in the central Australian region are saying you know
not in our back yard," she said.
"Sorry but these sites
and these areas are significant to us. They have significant dreaming
areas ... and it shouldn't be in these areas."
--------------------->
NUCLEAR WARFARE
By NIGEL ADLAM
14oct05
<www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,16913873%255E13569,00.html>
THE Territory
Government last night vowed to fight "tooth and nail'' to stop a
nuclear waste facility being built in the NT.
And it received strong
support from an unlikely source in the CLP. The Federal Government
yesterday moved to build a waste facility here through brute force,
introducing legislation to head off any challenge from governments,
indigenous owners or green groups.
If the law is passed in
the Senate, a nuclear waste depository will be built on Commonwealth
land near Alice Springs or Katherine within five years.
Chief Minister Clare
Martin said the move was the worst-ever federal attack on Territory
rights - worse than the overthrow of the Rights of the Terminally Ill
Act in 1997.
But her Government
stopped short of announcing an expensive legal challenge.
Labor said it hoped CLP
Senator Nigel Scullion would cross the floor and vote against the plan.
Ms Martin said the
Senator had publicly said he would vote against the Bill.
Senator Scullion last
night denied this. This was despite telling the Northern Territory News
in August: "'m out on this now _ I'll cross the floor.''
But last night Senator
Scullion said he had only supported a Labor motion calling on Prime
Minister John Howard to honour an election promise not to build the
facility in the NT. "I've never said I would vote against it,'' he said.
Territory Opposition
Leader Jodeen Carney said the CLP supported the call for scrapping
federal laws.
"One thing Territorians
don't like is Canberra opposing their will,'' Ms Carney said.
One of the Territory's
two Independent parliamentarians said the Territory Government had only
itself to blame for the problem.
Gerry Wood, the Member
for Nelson, accused the Territory Government of engaging in a political
charade to cover "its lack of leadership''.
NT Health Minister
Peter Toyne said the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney could produce
medical isotopes for 30 years.
"It's shameful to use
cancer patients as pawns in this grubby political game,'' Mr Toyne said.
Ms Martin said the
Territory was being forced to take the nuclear facility because it was
not a state.
"The Federal Government
is doing this to us because it can,'' she said.
--------------------->
ABC Last Update:
Monday, October 17, 2005. 7:41am (AEST)
Nuclear dump-health
link 'a lie'
The Medical Association
for Prevention of War says it is outraged at
comments linking a
nuclear waste dump to the health of Australians.
The association says
federal MP Dave Tollner and Senator Nigel Scullion have
been quoted as saying
the health of Australians would suffer unless a
nuclear waste dump was
imposed on the Territory.
The association's
vice-president, Dr Bill Williams. says the two issues are
worlds apart and the
statements should be retracted.
"They're peddling a lie
basically," Dr Williams said.
"They're pushing a
facility on to them that they simply don't need and
they're appealing to
the emotions of the electorate and saying that people's
health is going to
suffer if they don't take this radioactive waste dump."
Dr Williams says the
comments need to be corrected.
"It's a falsehood and
it needs to be retracted by those two gentlemen very
quickly," he said.
--------------------->
Desert wasteland
October 22, 2005
<www.smh.com.au/news/national/desert-wasteland/2005/10/21/1129775959997.html>
The remote Northern
Territory has been chosen to take Australia's nuclear waste, but some
argue it would be safer in Sydney, writes Wendy Frew.
The United States
Government's 18-year battle to store 77,000 tonnes of highly
radioactive nuclear waste deep inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada
desert has been a public relations nightmare.
The Nevada state
government challenge to the plan uncovered a real danger of spontaneous
nuclear chain reactions inside the waste dump. There have been
accusations of doctored statistics and a fierce debate about for how
many thousands of years the material will remain dangerous.
The prospect of an
accident involving even one of the giant trucks full of radioactive
waste that would wind their way through hundreds of major cities to the
dump has unnerved many Americans.
But it's Nevada that
feels most hard done by, singled out because its scattered population
of 2 million doesn't carry the clout of more heavily populated
neighbouring states.
None of the nuclear
waste is generated in the state, so why should it be dumped on them,
Nevadans ask. It's a sentiment residents of the Northern Territory
would understand.
The Australian
Government announced in July that low- and medium-level radioactive
waste - most of it generated in Sydney - would be stored at one of
three Commonwealth sites in the Territory. The Territory vowed to fight
the plan, but the Federal Government introduced a bill last week that
will override any legislative or legal challenge to the proposal from
the Northern Territory Government, indigenous owners or green groups.
The decision follows
years of planning by the Howard Government and its Labor predecessor to
build a national dump on the grounds the waste would be safer and more
secure than leaving it at the more than 100 sites around the country
where it is now stored.
That ambition failed
spectacularly last year when the Federal Court overturned a federal
plan to build a low-level waste dump in a remote part of South
Australia, against the wishes of that state's government.
The Federal
Government's Territory plan comes as the Liberals and Labor are pushing
for more uranium exports (China could be Australia's next customer),
and not long after the former prime minister Bob Hawke suggested
Australia make money from accepting high-level radioactive waste that
the rest of the world doesn't want.
There's also a
controversial debate about replacing coal with nuclear power to reduce
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, a suggestion the environment
movement says is a front for selling more uranium.
In the meantime,
Territorians face a proposal to bury low-level waste not much deeper
than the average grave, or possibly store it with much more dangerous
intermediate waste in what's called a dry storage facility -
essentially a factory-like building housing steel drums holding the
waste.
The Federal Government
will choose between three possible sites: Harts Range, about 100
kilometres north-east of Alice Springs; Mount Everard, 27 kilometres
north-west of Alice Springs; and Fishers Ridge, about 40 kilometres
south of Katherine. The facility could be operating by late 2011.
Australia doesn't have
high-level nuclear waste generated from nuclear power stations, the
kind of material that will be buried at Yucca. But concerns remain
about the safety and security of moving the waste from where it is
generated - mostly at Sydney's Lucas Heights research reactor -
thousands of kilometres by road or sea.
It might not only be
the people of the Northern Territory who are worried when it becomes
clear trucks carrying the waste would have to travel over the Blue
Mountains via the Great Western Highway or up Australia's east coast,
where the Great Barrier Reef is already vulnerable to shipping
accidents.
The Government says the
low-level waste would include contaminated laboratory gloves, clothing
and glassware, and contaminated soil. Intermediate level waste would
include disused radiotherapy and industrial material.
Under an agreement with
France, about 50 cubic metres of waste that is due to return after
reprocessing of spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights would also be
included.
Some waste would come
from therapeutic or diagnostic drugs that contain radioactive material
and are used in the diagnosis of diseases and conditions, including
cancer.
A Friends of the Earth
campaigner, Dr Jim Green, says the waste to be dumped in the Northern
Territory is far more radioactive and hazardous than the lower-level
waste the Federal Government tried to dump in South Australia. He also
rejects the claim there is no high-level waste in Australia.
"Spent nuclear fuel
from Lucas Heights meets the radiological and heat criteria for
classification as high-level waste, as the NSW Environment Protection
Authority has acknowledged, but [the Lucas Heights reactor operator]
ANSTO and the Federal Government persist with the fiction that spent
fuel is not waste," says Green, who has a doctorate in nuclear science.
He says much of the
Government's information about the dangers of nuclear waste is
misleading, such as a claim by the Science Minister, Brendan Nelson,
that uranium in the ground in the Northern Territory was more
radioactive than the waste that will be taken to the dump.
"Wrong. The spent fuel
reprocessing waste and some other waste to be dumped in the NT is far
more radioactive and hazardous than uranium," Green says.
A Macquarie University
geologist, Professor John Veevers, believes the Federal Government has
painted itself into a corner by arguing the material is safe but then
choosing extremely remote locations for the waste facility, thousands
of kilometres from where the material is generated.
"If it is OK to store
it in the Northern Territory where they don't generate any of it, it is
good enough to be put at Lucas Heights or North Shore Hospital,"
Veevers says.
He scoffs at Hawke's
suggestion Australia should become an international nuclear waste dump.
He says highly contaminated material should be stored where it is
generated rather than moved elsewhere, because it is so dangerous.
He says there is some
merit in building centralised facilities in each of Australia's major
cities for less dangerous material instead of multiple storage sites at
universities and hospitals.
But, while he argues
there is no logic to transporting this kind of material all the way to
the Northern Territory, he says the dangers are sometimes exaggerated.
"If a semi-trailer
crashed and the drums holding low-level material burst open (which is
unlikely) it would not be the end of the world. You can handle that
material relatively easily," he says.
A nuclear engineer,
Alan Parkinson, is worried that what he describes as the Government's
poor record on handling nuclear waste will jeopardise the safety of the
proposed facility in the Territory.
Parkinson is an
experienced nuclear engineer who oversaw the bulk of the clean-up at
the nuclear test site at Maralinga in the 1990s but was removed from
that position in 1998 after questioning some parts of the clean-up.
At Maralinga, he says,
plutonium waste with a half-life of 24,000 years was buried only a
couple of metres below the surface compared with the current plan to
transport relatively safe, low-level material thousands of kilometres
to house it in a dry storage facility.
(Half-life is the time
it takes for half of the radioactive element to decay.)
Parkinson also says
that it would be easier to guard waste if it was stored in more
populous areas.
"The public perception
is that it is dangerous so the Government thinks if it puts it in a
remote area it will be OK," he says.
"But no one wants the
waste and that is the problem."
--------------------->
Govt brews N-waste
legal challenge
By NIGEL ADLAM
19oct05
<www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,16963834%255E13569,00.html>
THE NT Government is
considering a legal challenge to a nuclear waste facility being built
in the Territory.
Chief Minister Clare
Martin said lawyers were investigating if the move was constitutional.
A legal challenge could
cost millions of dollars. Ms Martin said the best way to stop the waste
depository being built near Alice Springs or Katherine was for CLP
Senator Nigel Scullion to vote against the Federal Government.
The Government has a
majority of only one in the Senate and a defection by the Territory
Senator would probably kill the law.
But Senator Scullion
has said he will not vote against the Government, despite saying
several times in the past three months that he would "cross the floor''.
The CLP is frightened
of trying to tell its two Canberra representatives how to vote over the
nuclear facility, it was learned last night.
The party suffered
damaging criticism when it dumped long-serving Senator Grant Tambling
for voting against internet gambling.
The fallout is believed
to have contributed to the CLP's loss to Labor in the 2001 NT election.
Solomon MHR Dave
Tollner who has come under fire for refusing to vote against the siting
of the waste depository in the NT, said he had not been contacted by
party bosses.
"There has been a clear
division between the parliamentary wing and the party machine since the
Tambling affair,'' he said.
But Mr Tollner said he
had been in close contact with CLP leader Jodeen Carney.
"We're all disgusted.
But we must be rational. We can't stop it,'' he said.
Mr Tollner is to
introduce an amendment in Parliament to give the NT Government and
indigenous groups a say on where the nuclear waste facility is sited.
But the NT Government
and Aboriginal organisations said they don't want the nuclear waste
storage facility at any cost.
--------------------->
Scullion put on nuclear
poll alert
By Nigel Adlam
October 20, 2005
<www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16975730-17001,00.html>
CLP Senator Nigel
Scullion is in danger of losing his seat over the nuclear waste
facility dispute, an Independent MLA claimed yesterday.
Loraine Braham, who
represents the Alice Springs seat of Braitling in the Territory
Parliament, said the Senator had won by only 4000 votes last year.
She said Labor could
win both the NT's Senate seats in 2007.
"Does he really think
he has the confidence of the majority of voters if he will not stand up
for the Territory?" Ms Braham asked.
"A change of mind by
just 2000 people showing their wrath at the ballot box and his time in
the Senate will come to an end."
Mrs Braham said the
Senator had gone back on a promise to vote against the waste depository
being sited in the NT to please Prime Minister John Howard.
She said it wasn't "a
good way to preserve his seat".
Senator Scullion
yesterday said he didn't know if he would lose his seat. "I haven't put
my mind to that - people will consider all this when they come to
vote," he said..
But he added: "I'm in
tune and in touch with the public."
He said he would vote
in favour of the waste depository as otherwise Lucas Heights would not
be allowed to commission a reactor to produce medical isotopes.
The Territory
Government yesterday wrote an open letter to Senator Scullion urging
him to vote against the nuclear waste facility.
The letter, signed by
Chief Minister Clare Martin, said: "The Northern Territory Parliament
calls on you to protect the rights of our citizens and vote against
Canberra's draconian legislation.
"The Prime Minister has
already lied to us and said that our rights would be respected.
"This is obviously not
the case.
"Senator, you have
guaranteed Territorians that you would cross the floor and vote against
a national nuclear dump.
"Senator Scullion said,
'If there's legislation, I'll vote against it. Were not having anybody
else's waste in our back yard'.
"Territorians have
trusted you to represent them in Canberra. Stick to your word and
protect our rights."
Ms Martin urged
Territorians to act and telephone, fax and email Senator Scullion and
Prime Minister John Howard.
--------------------->
BEVERLEY URANIUM MINE +
EXPANSION PLANS
--------------------->
Indigenous groups bear
brunt of nuclear nasties, say environmentalists
By Joel Catchlove
27 Sep 2005
<http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display/9020/index.php>
Concerned citizens took
to the streets of Adelaide city yesterday morning to raise awareness
regarding Heathgate Resources’ conduct at its Beverley Uranium Mine in
SA’s north-east. The action marked renewed opposition to the nuclear
industry in Australia, particularly following the highly successful
Indigenous-environmentalist Alliance Against Uranium national meeting
earlier this month.
Among those assembled
outside the Heathgate offices at 45 Grenfell Street were several
‘mad-hatters’ who gleefully plied morning commuters and passers-by with
slices of ‘yellow-cake’ and steaming cups of ‘Aboriginal
sovereign-tea’.
Friends of the Earth
national nuclear campaigner and well-known Adelaide identity Dr. Jim
Green expressed particular concern regarding what he called Heathgate’s
“track record of environmental pollution.”
“Over 30 spills and
leaks have been recorded at Beverley, including at least five in the
past year, and Heathgate routinely dumps its liquid nuclear waste into
groundwater,” said Dr. Green. The mine’s most recent spill, in August
of this year, saw 13,500 litres of radioactive ‘extraction fluid’
overflow from a containment area and into the surrounding environment.
This came only a little over a week after a previous leak from an
evaporation pond and a spill of almost 60,000 litres of ‘injection
fluid’ containing uranium in March.
Heathgate Resources is
entirely owned by US nuclear giant General Atomics, a corporation
involved in numerous aspects of the nuclear industry and the
development of military technologies. Heathgate’s Beverley Uranium Mine
has been in commercial operation since 1999 and has recently
significantly stepped up uranium exploration throughout the Beverley
region.
Sophie Green, of the
Campaign Against Nuclear Dumping, emphasised Heathgate’s record of
“selective and inadequate” consultation with the Adnyamathanha
community, on whose traditional lands the mine lies. Heathgate’s claims
that their relationship with the Adnyamathanha is “a very good one” is
challenged by statements from Adnyamathanha representatives. Vince
Coulthard, Chairperson of the Adnyamathanha Native Title Management
Committee has expressed concern that mining agreements were signed
“under duress”. Indeed, the 2003 Senate Committee Report on uranium
mining recognised “evidence of inadequate consultation”, citing
evidence that Indigenous-Heathgate negotiations had been marked by
“intimidation rather than collaboration”.
Ms. Green also referred
to continuing concerns regarding the international impacts of
Beverley’s uranium, “Beverley uranium is converted into high-level
nuclear waste in nuclear power reactors, yet there is not a single
repository anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level nuclear
waste.”
Ms. Green also
commented that enough Australian uranium has now been exported to
produce some 80 tonnes of plutonium, enough for 8,000 nuclear weapons.
“It is universally acknowledged that the international ‘safeguards’
system is fundamentally flawed,” she said.
A suspected employee of
Heathgate Resources attempted to photograph those assembled and when
questioned, became defensive and moved inside the building. Several of
the mad-hatters expressed their hope to share morning tea with
Heathgate Resources’ Vice President David Brunt and other staff later
that morning.
See also:
<http://www.geocities.com/olympicdam>
--------------------->
Beverley infosheet ...
THE GOO, THE BAD AND
THE UGLY AT BEVERLEY URANIUM MINE
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: STOP
THE BEVERLEY EXPANSION!
STOP DUMPING LIQUID
NUCLEAR WASTE IN SA GROUNDWATER!
Since 2001 a fast
tracked in-situ leach (ISL) mine, the Beverley Uranium Mine, has been
operating in the northern Flinders Ranges against strong opposition
from environmentalists and from the Adnyamathanha Indigenous Community.
The mine is owned by
General Atomics, an American company, and managed by its subsidiary,
Heathgate Resources. It is not as large as the Olympic Uranium Dam at
Roxby Downs but utilises a different form of ore extraction, which is
by far the dirtiest method conceivable – this being in-situ
leaching (ISL) with sulphuric acid.
ISL involves pumping
acid into an aquifer. This dissolves the uranium ore and other heavy
metals and the solution is then pumped back to the surface. The small
amount of uranium is separated at the surface. The liquid radioactive
waste - containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid - is
simply dumped in groundwater. From being inert and immobile in the ore
body, the radionuclides and heavy metals are now bioavailable and
mobile in the aquifer.
Heathgate has no plans
to clean up the aquifer as it says the pollution will ‘attenuate’ -
that the aquifer will return to its pre-mining state over time. This
claim has been recently queried by the scientific community as being
highly speculative with no firm science behind it.
Acid ISL mining is
banned in the US and in Canada. Experiences with its use in the Eastern
Bloc and elsewhere have left aquifers polluted.
“The government chose
not to demand that the groundwater be rehabilitated, an unacceptable
situation for the Australian public at large given our increasing
reliance on groundwater and the increasing salinity of land surfaces
and water systems.” -- Jillian Marsh, submission to 2002-03 Senate
Inquiry.
The 2003 Senate
References and Legislation Committee report into the regulation of
uranium mining in Australia reported "a pattern of under-performance
and non-compliance", it identified "many gaps in knowledge and found an
absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of
contamination or its impact on the environment", and it concluded that
changes were necessary "in order to protect the environment and its
inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage".
On ISL mining, the 2003
Senate report stated:
“The
Committee is concerned that the ISL process, which is still in its
experimental state and introduced in the face of considerable public
opposition, was permitted prior to conclusive evidence being available
on its safety and environmental impacts.”
“The
Committee recommends that, owing to the experimental nature and the
level of public opposition, the ISL mining technique should not be
permitted until more conclusive evidence can be presented on its safety
and environmental impacts.”
“Failing that, the Committee recommends that at the very least, mines
utilising the ISL technique should be subject to strict regulation,
including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to
groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure
environmental impacts are minimised.”
Yet mining continues,
as does the discharge of toxic liquid waste into groundwater.
Another feature of ISL
mining is surface contamination from spills and leaks of radioactive
solutions. There have been over 20 spills at Beverley, such as the
spill of 62,000 litres of contaminated water in January 2002 after a
pipe burst, and the spill of 15,000 litres of contaminated water in May
2002.
And the problems don’t
end there. Beverley uranium is converted into high-level nuclear waste
in nuclear power reactors, yet there is still not a single repository
anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from nuclear
power.
Australian uranium has
led to the production of over 80 tonnes of plutonium in nuclear
reactors around the world - enough for 8,000 nuclear weapons - yet it
is universally acknowledged that the international ‘safeguards’ system
is fundamentally flawed and limited.
Voices of the
Adnyamathanha Community
The hasty ‘go–ahead’
given to the Beverley uranium mine was not sanctioned by the whole of
the Adnyamathanha people whose sacred and traditional lands the mine is
on. The company negotiated with a small number of Native Title
claimants, but did not recognise the will of the community as a whole.
This divide-and-rule strategy, coupled with the joint might of industry
and government, resulted in inadequate and selective consultation with
the Adnyamathanha people.
As one Adnyamathanha
member puts it: “Published works arising out of the EIS process is
biased in favour of ‘development’ because it is owned and controlled by
the powerful – the mining company/industry and the government.”
The level of discontent
and confusion widely expressed by those who have taken part in or
witnessed the Beverley mine approval process has led one Adnyamathanha
person, Jillian Marsh, to engage in a research project that aims to
fully explore the nature of decision making in this case. It is
hoped that this project will bring a better understanding by all
parties of the cultural heritage issues at stake. Jillian Marsh states:
“The claims made by Adnyamathanha about being ignored or having our
concerns regarded as not important needs to be addressed. Including the
voices of Adnyamathanha in an academic research project (a thesis
Doctorate) is one way of bringing some balance.” (8/9/05.)
The late Mr Artie
Wilton, the last living Wilyaru man (Adnyamathanha full initiate), said
in June 2000 that he was never consulted about the Beverley uranium
mine and never agreed to the Beverley or Honeymoon mining projects.
"The Beverley Mine must be stopped, dead stopped", Mr Wilton said.
(Media release, 7/6/2000.)
Vincent Coulthard,
Chairperson of the Adnyamathanha Native Title Management Committee,
expressed concern that “a mining agreement was signed under duress” and
“Heathgate hasn’t delivered promised commitments” and that
Adnyamathanha people “were not given the opportunity to tender for
crucial contracts.” (ABC, 3/11/99.)
Kelvin Johnson states:
“We protest at the treatment of our people being forced into an unfair
process of negotiation. We protest because our land is being
damaged against our wishes. We protest because Native Title
legislation is not helping our country. We protest because the
State Government and the Mining Industry refuse to listen to our
concerns. We protest because it is our right and our
responsibility to look after this country.” (Media release, 7/6/2000.)
For many years before
the introduction of the mine, the Adnyamathanha people looked after
their cultural sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act (SA). However,
since the coming of Native Title, the Heritage Act was then over-ridden
by the Native Title Act, although it should not have been.
Richard Salvador from
the Pacific Islands Association of NGOs states: “... those
Adnyamanthanha who openly challenge the legal system and the government
policies as an inadequate and inappropriate framework for consultation
are punished, marginalized and reputed as “radical’ and “unreasonable”.
... From where we stand, the two are systems of resource extraction and
misuse/abuse of our lands , which, in the final analysis, strip (us) of
our dignity and violates our human rights.” (Presentation to NPT Review
Conference Preparatory Committee, April 2002.)
Jillian Marsh states:
“The State and Federal government enact legislation and then choose to
ignore requirements under these Acts. This leads the Australian public,
in this case specifically the Adnyamathanha community, and the mining
industry to an understanding that our legal system can be effectively
thwarted without any accountability if the governments of the day
choose to support a proposal such as the Beverley Uranium Mine.”
(Submission to 2002-03 Senate Inquiry.)
‘Consultation’ -
Heathgate style:
“Initial negotiation was misrepresentative, ill-informed, and designed
to divide and disempower the Adnyamathanha community.”
“[T]he resulting meeting was held under appalling conditions. The
company (Heathgate Resources) censored the entire meeting with the
assistance of Graham Gunn (local member of Parliament) and the State
Police. One Adnyamathanha man that stood up and asked for an
independent facilitator from the floor to be elected was immediately
escorted by two armed Police holding him on either side (by his arms)
to the outside of the building.”-- Jillian Marsh, submission to 2002-03
Senate Inquiry.
--------------------->
PROPOSALS TO SELL URANIUM TO
INDIA AND CHINA
--------------------->
Greens against uranium
sales to India
October 21, 2005 -
4:39PM
<www.theage.com.au/news/National/Greens-against-uranium-sales-to-India/2005/10/21/1129775950396.html>
The Greens have urged
Prime Minister John Howard to rule out Australian support for
developing nuclear ties with India.
And the Australian
Conservation Foundation (ACF) claimed federal government moves to
expand uranium exports to both China and India were undermining global
efforts to stop nuclear proliferation.
The calls came after
the government this week said it was open to the idea of China
conducting uranium exploration and mining in Australia.
The two nations are in
the midst of negotiations to draw up a nuclear safeguards agreement
that would allow Australia to export uranium to China.
The Age newspaper
reported India had signalled it might pursue closer nuclear ties with
Australia as it seeks to expand its domestic nuclear power capacity.
Greens energy
spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne said the reported Indian moves were
deeply troubling.
"Granting India an
exemption would be tantamount to ripping up the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, paving the way for a significant expansion of
nuclear weapons capability and making the world less safe," she said.
"It could also smooth
the way for Australian uranium sales to India, as flagged by the Greens
in parliament last month, particularly given the Australian
government's avid support for an expansion of uranium exports."
Senator Milne said the
world did not need more nuclear power.
"It is dangerous,
polluting and no solution to climate change," she said.
ACF spokesman David
Noonan said all Australian uranium inevitably became nuclear waste and
potentially fuelled nuclear weapons.
"Revelations in the
media this week have revealed Australian involvement in proposals and
discussions to sell uranium to China and India, both nuclear weapon
states, was in direct conflict with international disarmament and
nuclear non-proliferation laws," Mr Noonan said.
"The current rush by
the federal government to get uranium out of the ground and shipped
overseas is misguided and deeply destabilising.
"The government's push
for more uranium mines is working to undermine international attempts
to put the brakes on nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament."
Mr Noonan said a senior
Chinese general recently threatened the use of nuclear weapons in any
conflict over Taiwan.
China has not ratified
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
He said India had
secretly diverted civil nuclear technology to use in developing nuclear
weapons and had not signed the fundamental Nuclear Non Proliferation
(NPT) Treaty.
"China, India and other
nations need new energy sources but nuclear is not the answer. It is
not clean, green, cheap or safe."
--------------------->
Monday 17 October
China should renounce
N-weapons: Greens
China should renounce
nuclear weapons and dismantle its intercontinental ballistic missiles
before any talk of Australia providing uranium is considered, Greens
Senator Bob Brown said today.
"China, which had its
second manned space flight last week, is able to lob nuclear weapons on
Australian cities. As well, it has provided n-weapons know-how to
Pakistan from where it has been passed on to Iran.
In this age of
terrorism and handbag-sized nuclear weapons, selling uranium to Beijing
is reminiscent of selling pig-iron to pre-war Japan," Senator Brown
said.
"It is not in
Australia's best interests. Lining the pockets of uranium miners is no
reason for raising terror levels in the future Australian public
domain," Senator Brown said.
Senator Brown who, at a
Senate Inquiry in May, first discovered the February trip to Beijing by
Australia's Director-General of Nuclear Safeguards (see The Age page 1,
today) called on the Howard government to lift the veil of secrecy and
deceit over the issue.
"There is no way the
Chinese Communist authorities should be licensed to explore or mine for
uranium in Australia," Senator Brown said.
--------------------->
Costello pledges checks
on Chinese U-mining
The West Australian
Tuesday 18 October 2005
CHRIS JOHNSON
CANBERRA
Any proposed investment
in an Australian uranium mine by a foreign state such as China would
face tougher than normal scrutiny, Federal Treasurer Peter Costello
warned yesterday.
While touting the
possibility of massive uranium exports to China's expanding nuclear
power sector, Mr Costello tried to put the Chinese off the idea of
buying into or taking over an Australian mine, an idea that Chinese
officials have floated to Canberra in recent high-level meetings.
He pointed out that
foreign takeovers of established Australian companies required
screening of the buyer and approval from the Foreign Tnvestment Review
Board, which operates under the Federal Treasury.
"In addition to that,
where it is a sovereign government it's scrutinised even more
carefully," Mr Costello said.
But Chinese companies
wanting to look for uranium in WA can do so because State Government
permits do not stipulate what minerals are included in exploration.
Initial permits are
granted for five years, then renewed every two years until a total
exploration period of nine years has expired.
Permits must then be
renewed each year.
It is only when a
mining licence is sought that the State Government stipulates that
uranium mining is prohibited.
Secret cable documents
between Chinese and Australian officials, revealed yesterday, show
China has already asked the Federal Government if it can do its own
uranium exploration in Australia.
Australian Nuclear
Safeguards Office director-general John Carlson indicated to the
Chinese that there would be no restrictions at a national level. But he
said it was the States that had responsibility for licensing mining and
exploration and under
Labor's three-mines policy they opposed further uranium mining.
Prime Minister John
Howard said he was not aware of any approach from China for uranium
exploration, but Chinese companies wanting to explore would have to
comply with the rules.
A Chinese Embassy
spokeswoman said negotiations to mine uranium were still in early
stages and no approach had been made to State or Territory governments.
--------------------->
The price of selling
China yellowcake
October 18, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/tony-parkinson/the-price-of-selling-china-yellowcake/2005/10/17/1129401194000.html>
Despite recent pledges,
Beijing has a patchy record on proliferation, writes Tony Parkinson.
China has become an El
Dorado for Australian energy exporters. Providing the gas and coal to
fuel the East Asian giant's rapid economic expansion is a highly
lucrative business. But should the Australian Government draw the line
when it comes to uranium supplies?
The global nuclear fuel
cycle is not just business as usual. It brings into play critical
strategic and security concerns, such as disturbing disclosures of an
extensive blackmarket trade in technology for weapons of mass
destruction, and the twin crises over attempted nuclear weapons
break-outs by Iran and North Korea.
Yesterday, a special
investigation by The Age revealed that high-level officials in Beijing
began sounding out the Australian Government in February about their
interest in taking up a commercial stake in the mining and exploitation
of Australia's uranium.
Looking to double its
nuclear power generation, this approach of seeking direct equity
investments in offshore mining and exploration is in keeping with a
strategy adopted by China in other key energy sectors. It wants
certainty of supply.
For Australia, however,
these overtures from China pose an awkward dilemma. Quite apart from
the constraints imposed by the long-standing "three mines" policy,
there are lingering concerns about China's less-than-auspicious record
on non-proliferation.
The People's Republic
has dutifully signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the
Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In 2002, it promulgated
new regulations restricting the trade and movement of missile parts and
dual-use chemical and biological agents. All of which suggests China is
aligning itself increasingly with efforts to constrain and contain the
spread of WMD-related materials, and is alive to the risks of these
technologies finding their way into the wrong hands.
Talking the talk is one
thing. Unfortunately, China's record on non-proliferation in the 1990s
fell woefully short of its rhetorical commitments.
In 1997, the Central
Intelligence Agency identified China's large, state-controlled
companies as "the most significant supplier of WMD-related goods and
technology to foreign countries". In an unclassified CIA report in
2001, Chinese firms were identified as having provided missile-related
items to North Korea and Libya, a zirconium production facility to
Iran, and "extensive support" to Pakistan's nuclear program. The China
North Industries Corporation, described by US officials as a "serial
proliferator", has come under especially close scrutiny for the sale of
military and dual-use equipment, including ballistic missile technology
to Iran.
In May, 2003, the Bush
Administration slapped a two-year trade ban on NORINCO as punishment.
The ban has reportedly cost NORINCO $100 million ($A132 million) a year
in lost US sales.
Europe, too, maintains
a long-standing arms trade embargo on China, imposed as a protest
against the massive human rights violations during the Tiananmen
massacre.
Momentum has been
growing within the European Union to lift the embargo, with some
suggesting that a tightening of the European Code of Conduct on Arms
Sales would offset any dangers. For the moment, however, the EU has
extended the embargo.
Given the recidivism of
China's state-run conglomerates in operating outside the orbit of
international agreements, and allegedly doing deals on the sly with
undesirables in the underground WMD procurement network, the jury is
out on whether China can be trusted to play by the rules. Do its new
industrialists put backdoor profits ahead of non-proliferation?
Historically, China has
not taken kindly to being lectured on its responsibilities. In 2001,
senior arms control negotiator Sha Zukang gave Australians a taste of
Beijing's testiness, when he told SBS Dateline that Australia should
butt out, and America should back off.
Four years on, though,
there is a growing belief in Canberra that China is now anxious to
demonstrate its bona fides. "They have been trying harder," said one
diplomat.
The big breakthrough
came last year when China signed up to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, of
which Australia is a leading member. The NSG, which has a membership
incorporating most of the advanced economies, imposes stringent
safeguards.
As a pre-condition for
the supply of materials and technology involved in the nuclear fuel
cycle, the NSG lays down onerous requirements for the physical
protection of nuclear materials and facilities, seeks formal
commitments from governments not to divert potential dual-use items,
and imposes an extensive system of export checks and controls.
As a result of signing
on to these protocols, the risks of onward proliferation by China have
probably diminished significantly. This has allowed Canada and the US
to enter agreements with China on high-technology transfers, as have
some European powers.
With that in mind,
there is an argument to say Australia could augment the process of
drawing China further into this transparent and legitimate trade in
nuclear materials by opening up its uranium industry to allow China
access to secure, reliable long-term supplies.
That China is about to
boost its nuclear energy production is a fact of life. The three-mines
policy won't change that, nor can the Howard Government. But, as a
major uranium supplier to China, Australia might at least give itself
the leverage to insist on rigorous safeguards.
Whether China can or
would accede to Australia's demands is entirely up to China. But this
is the benchmark Australia applies to all other uranium buyers.
Whatever the significance of China as a trading partner, it cannot be
exempt - should not be exempt - from the rules.
In a seller's market,
Australia can set the terms of engagement. Take it or leave it.
Tony Parkinson is a
senior columnist.
--------------------->
China's secret uranium
bid
By Richard Baker
October 17, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/chinas-secret-uranium-bid/2005/10/16/1129401144938.html>
CHINA has asked the
Federal Government if it can conduct its own uranium exploration and
mining operations in Australia.
Confidential diplomatic
cables obtained by The Age show the Chinese told Australian officials
of their interest in "uranium mining and exploration in Australia" at a
February meeting in Beijing.
At the meeting, the
deputy director-general of China's National Development and Reform
Commission, Wang Jun, asked Australian officials, "Would Australia
permit Chinese involvement?'
The director-general of
the Australian Nuclear Safeguards Office, John Carlson, told Mr Wang
there would be no restrictions at a federal level.
But Mr Carlson warned
that Australia's state and territory governments — responsible for
licensing mining and exploration — opposed further uranium mining and
exploration.
"It was hoped political
attitudes would change, but this was likely to take some time," Mr
Carlson said.
In August, the Federal
Government used its constitutional powers to assume control of mining
rights in the Northern Territory, declaring it "open for business" for
further uranium mining, subject to environmental and Aboriginal
approvals.
The move undermined NT
Chief Minister Clare Martin's recent election promise of no new uranium
mines.
More than 12 companies
have licences to explore the Territory, which is estimated to have
about $12 billion worth of uranium deposits.
Another cable, released
by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under
freedom-of-information laws, shows that Chinese officials asked to
expand the scope of the agreement to include uranium exploration, as
well as co-operation between the two countries on nuclear science and
technology.
"They want to include
not only uranium supply, but co-operation in nuclear science and
technology, nuclear safety and uranium exploration. (China) would like
to explore for uranium in Australia …" the cable said.
Australia, which has
about 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, has three uranium
mines in operation — two in South Australia and one in the Northern
Territory.
Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer announced in August that Australia had started
negotiating a safeguards agreement with China regarding uranium exports.
The prospect of China
conducting its own mining and exploration operations has not been
raised publicly.
In a statement to The
Age, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said: "Owning or
part-owning an Australian uranium mining company — or making a new
Chinese-controlled investment in uranium in Australia — is not a short
cut to buying uranium and does not circumvent in any way our export
controls or safeguards."
The department said
Australia had sent agreement documentation to China and was awaiting a
response.
Nuclear proliferation
expert Richard Broinowski, a former Australian ambassador to South
Korea, said allowing China to conduct its own uranium operations in
Australia was concerning. It would make it more difficult to ensure the
material was used only for civil power generation. "I'm very worried
about this. I think the Australians are seeing dollar signs all over
the place," Professor Broinowski told The Age.
Although China might
use Australian uranium for power generation, it could then be free to
use its own uranium resources for military purposes, he said.
The documents reveal
China first asked about buying Australian uranium when Mr Downer met
the vice-chairman of China's National Development and Reform
Commission, Zhang Guobao, on August 16 last year.
Mr Zhang told Mr Downer
that he wanted to raise an issue "that might be sensitive for
Australia". He explained China's increasing energy demands and asked if
Australia would sell uranium to China.
Mr Downer replied that
Australia was not opposed to nuclear power stations, but it was against
the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He said political interest in
Australia about any deal would be strong, given China's nuclear weapons
arsenal.
Since China made its
request to buy uranium, eight senior federal ministers have spoken
publicly about increased uranium mining and the prospect of nuclear
power in Australia.
Prominent Labor
figures, including former prime minister Bob Hawke and former NSW
premier Bob Carr, have also contributed to the nuclear debate.
Federal Labor energy
and mining spokesman Martin Ferguson recently called on the ALP to
change its policy of opposition to new uranium mines.
Any agreement with
China would need to be scrutinised by Federal Parliament's Joint
Standing Committee on Treaties.
* Australia has 19
nuclear deals covering 36 countries that agree not to use uranium for
military purposes.
* Last year Australia
exported 9648 tonnes of uranium, 39% to the US, 25% to Japan, 25% to
the EU, 10% to Korea and 1% to Canada.
* Australia has 40% of
the world's uranium resources.
* The world uranium
spot price has trebled since 2002-03 to $US32 a pound.
* The Federal
Government believes we could double exports to $1 billion, rising from
10,000 tonnes a year to 30,000 by 2010.
* Australia has three
uranium mines: Olympic Dam and Beverly, in South Australia, and Ranger,
in the NT.
--------------------->
The China connection
October 17, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/world/the-china-connection/2005/10/16/1129401145309.html>
Did a conversation at a
meeting in Beijing last year prompt a U-turn in Australia's approach to
uranium exports? Richard Baker traces the curious tale of how one of
Australia's most contentious debates was reopened.
When the Chinese want
to cut a big international deal, their venue of choice is usually
Beijing's exclusive Diaoyutai State Guest House, an 800-year-old former
imperial palace in a secluded setting away from the city bustle.
With its pristine
gardens and modern appointments - the massage therapy is recommended -
this Camp David-style retreat is an ideal place to soften up visiting
politicians before trying to strike a bargain.
It was here on August
16 last year that Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was
asked to accept a deal that went to the heart of one of Australia's
most divisive, long-running debates - one with profound political,
economic and ethical issues.
Downer, who was on an
ambitious mission to win free-trade concessions with China and to
convince North Korea to rein in its nuclear ambitions, met the
vice-chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission,
Zhang Guabao. Zhang explained China's hunger for energy, its concern
about greenhouse gas emissions and its plans to expand its nuclear
power capacity "whether Australia expressed its opposition or not".
He went on to remark
upon Australia's "very rich" uranium resources and posed a question to
Downer and his team: would Australia sell uranium to China?
It is not known whether
Downer was expecting this question or whether it was an ambush. Either
way, a uranium deal did not feature in media reports foreshadowing his
visit or in dispatches after it. Downer revealed the Chinese request in
Parliament in March this year.
Confidential documents
obtained by The Age show Downer replied that a deal was possible, as
Australia already exported uranium to the United States, Japan, Britain
and other European Union countries, South Korea and Canada.
He told Zhang that
Australia had no objections to nuclear power stations, but it was
against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Zhang assured him that
China wanted the uranium for peaceful purposes only.
The Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade has told The Age that it has issued China
with a bilateral safeguards agreement that would allow uranium exports
to begin. China is yet to respond.
In the five years to
mid-2005, Australia exported 46,600 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate
worth more than $2.1 billion to 11 countries. Every shipment is subject
to strict international inspection conditions and must be used solely
for peaceful purposes.
With China planning to
double its nuclear power output and build at least eight new nuclear
reactors, Australia - which has 40 per cent of the world's uranium
resources - stands to make a lot of money. It is also symbolic of
Australia's desire to increase ties with the rising power that is
modern China.
But was China's request
also the spark that reignited the nuclear debate in Australia?
Before Downer's meeting
with the Chinese, the issue of nuclear power and, to a lesser extent an
increase in uranium output, was hardly on the Government's radar.
Its white paper on
energy, released two months before Downer's meeting, reveals just how
low a priority nuclear power was. The paper strongly supported coal and
oil, all but ruling out nuclear power as an option for Australia.
It concluded: "Use of
uranium reserves raises cost, safety and waste disposal issues in power
generation. While industrialised countries on average generate 24 per
cent of electricity from nuclear power, Australia is not contemplating
the domestic use of nuclear power."
But in recent months,
Prime Minister John Howard, Treasurer Peter Costello, Downer,
Environment Minister Ian Campbell, Science Minister Brendan Nelson and
a host of other ministers and backbenchers have discussed nuclear power
as a climatefriendly option for Australia and called for uranium mining
to be increased for economic reasons.
It has not all been
political rhetoric either. In August, the Commonwealth used its
constitutional powers to assume control of mining of the Northern
Territory's rich uranium resources. The move undermined an election
promise by Labor's NT Chief Minister, Clare Martin, that there would be
no more uranium mines.
The Howard Government's
policy is to dramatically increase Australia's uranium exports and open
new mines. But the Labor states, which license mining and exploration,
are standing in the way.
Labor is coming under
strong pressure, internally and externally, to overturn its "three
mines" policy, which limits uranium mining to the NT's Ranger mine and
South Australia's Olympic Dam and Beverley mines.
A federal parliamentary
inquiry into Australia's uranium resources has been established this
year. The Liberal chairman, Geoff Prosser, said most contributors to
the inquiry wanted Australia's uranium mining increased to capitalise
on world demand that has caused the spot price to triple to $US32 a
pound.
People were also
interested in nuclear power because they believed it could combat
global warming, Prosser said. "The main factor is the concern generally
in the community about global warming, that nuclear power generation
has virtually no greenhouse emission gases, no carbon dioxide
emission," he told ABC radio last week.
So, when the lure of
big profits, global concerns about the effect of fossil fuels on our
climate, a spike in oil prices and a sophisticated international public
relations campaign by the uranium lobby are combined, it is easy to see
how nuclear has become trendy again.
In Australia, it is not
just the Howard Government talking up nuclear power and uranium. The
issues are set to divide Labor. Former prime minister Bob Hawke last
month suggested that Australia offer to take the world's nuclear waste
and store it in the outback.
Former NSW premier Bob
Carr has called for a debate on nuclear power and Labor's federal
resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, wants the ALP to abandon its
three-mines policy.
But Ferguson faces
strong opposition. Labor leader Kim Beazley has ruled out a change to
ALP policy and senior colleagues such as environment spokesman Anthony
Albanese are vehement in their opposition to uranium.
"Labor's position is
clear. We are opposed to a nuclear power industry," Albanese told The
Age last week.
The Labor states, led
by Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who fears uranium would threaten
his state's lucrative coal industry, and West Australian Premier Geoff
Gallop, who believes uranium mining is morally wrong and increases the
risk of terrorist activity in Australia, are gearing up for a fight.
"If we have a radical
expansion of the nuclear industry around the world, the level of risk
associated with such dirty bombs would be increased," Dr Gallop said
recently.
Environmental groups,
traditionally major opponents of anything nuclear, are also facing
splits in their ranks over the merits of nuclear power versus fossil
fuels.
Greenpeace and the
Australian Conservation Foundation are against more uranium mining and
nuclear energy, but others in the renewable energy sector regard
nuclear power as the lesser of two evils and a short-term solution to
climate change that could play a role until solar and wind technologies
are advanced.
Leading scientist and
climate change author Tim Flannery said recently: "I'm not against
nuclear power as such. I think nuclear power is getting safer, and
there's some new technologies on the horizon which will be very
interesting." But for others, such as Richard Broinowski, former
Australian ambassador to South Korea and author on nuclear issues, the
nuclear debate still revolves around weapons proliferation and the
potential cost to human life.
Professor Broinowski,
told The Age Australia's politicians were putting profits ahead of
reason when it came to uranium exports to China and other countries
such as the US, Britain and Japan. "There is no guarantee that the tens
of thousands of tonnes of uranium Australia has already exported has
not been diverted into nuclear weapons," he said.
The negotiations with
Beijing were worrying because China had yet to fully cooperate with all
inspection regimes of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he said.
Broinowski said
exporting uranium to China would also exacerbate the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and global tension because of Australia's decision to
participate in America's missile defence shield program.
The US defence plans
were prompting China and Russia to stimulate their own nuclear weapons
program, he said. With this in mind, it was irresponsible to be selling
Beijing uranium for civilian purposes because it would permit China to
divert its own uranium resources to military purposes, he said.
And what of the US?
What does our closest ally think of Australia's attempts to cosy up to
China? Officially, the US State Department has no position on
Australia's uranium export deal with China. Yet it was reported earlier
this year that US State Department officials were privately saying the
deal would be watched closely.
US consulate sources
told The Age the US was happy for uranium exports to go to China
because Australia had stringent safeguards to ensure the material would
be used for peaceful purposes. The US also acknowledged China's energy
demands and desire to limit its reliance on greenhouse- causing fossil
fuels.
But some observers
believe Australia's attempts to widen trade with China will put new
strains on our relationship with the US, particularly given the tension
between China and the US over Taiwan.
Tom Grunfeld, China
specialist at Empire State College in New York, told London's Daily
Telegraph in July that some people in Washington would be concerned by
Australia's plan following a warning from a Chinese general that China
was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US.
A report by leading
intelligence monitoring group Stratfor sums up the importance of the
uranium deal with China.
"The future of
Australia as an Asian nation and the direction of massive Chinese
energy consumption hang in the balance," Stratfor warned. "Australia is
headed for a heated debate pitting an unlikely alliance of anti-nuclear
greens and Chinaphobic nationalists against the Government's desire to
assert itself in Asia and to boost its revenue stream in the process."
--------------------->
Costello cool on
China's nuclear plan
By Hamish McDonald and
Josh Gordon
October 18, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/costello-cool-on-chinas-nuclear-plan/2005/10/17/1129401196881.html>
ANY proposed investment
in an Australian uranium mine by a sovereign state such as China would
face tougher than normal scrutiny, Treasurer Peter Costello has warned.
While touting the
possibility of massive uranium exports to China's expanding nuclear
power sector, Mr Costello tried to put the Chinese off the idea of
buying into or taking over an Australian mine, an idea Chinese
officials have floated to Canberra in recent high-level meetings.
Mr Costello, who was in
Beijing for a G-20 finance ministers meeting, appeared to hint that
attempts by China to use its $US769 billion ($A1020 billion) foreign
reserves for resource acquisitions could face the same objections that
met the recent failed bid by China National Offshore Oil Corp to buy
the US oil firm Unocal.
He pointed out that
foreign takeovers of established Australian companies required
screening of the buyer and approval from the Foreign Investment Review
Board, which operates under the Federal Treasury.
"In addition to that,
where it is a sovereign government it's scrutinised even more
carefully," Mr Costello said.
"It's quite a
difference whether it's a private company or a sovereign government.
Private companies are handled under FIRB and the existing law.
Sovereign governments raise whole new policy questions which would have
to be determined if it were a state-owned company that sought to engage
in the activity."
Mr Costello's comments
followed publication by The Age on Monday of confidential diplomatic
cables that revealed that China — which has conducted numerous nuclear
tests — has told the Government that it is keen to conduct its own
uranium exploration and mining operations in Australia and co-operate
on nuclear science and technology.
His cautious stance
compared with that of Prime Minister John Howard, who said yesterday
that China would be treated like any other country.
"They'll be subject to
the same laws as anybody else," Mr Howard said. "That's our foreign
investment laws."
Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer yesterday suggested that China's status as a nuclear
weapons state was no obstacle, but warned the issue was "a bit
academic" because the Labor Party, which has a policy preventing new
uranium mines, was in government in the states which needed to approve
new mines.
"But if they changed
their policy, well, there is no reason why Chinese companies can't
invest in the Australian resources industry," he told ABC radio. He
said France exported uranium from Australia and had nuclear weapons,
"so anything is possible I suppose".
Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley said Labor had no intention of changing its policy. "I would
say at this stage we're as far into the business as we want to be," Mr
Beazley said. "They've got plenty of opportunity to acquire uranium
from current facilities."
China was yet to
respond to a draft bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement handed over
by Canberra this year, Australian officials said, pointing out that
negotiation and ratification could take a year or more.
Such a treaty, required
with all countries importing Australian uranium, bars use in nuclear
weapons or military propulsion such as in nuclear submarines.
--------------------->
ALP will allow for
uranium growth
The Australian
Tuesday 18 October 2005
Katharine Murphy
Catherine Armitage
KIM Beazley has cleared
the way for an expansion of uranium mining, claiming federal Labor
would not shut any new mines approved by state or federal governments
before it comes to power.
The Opposition Leader,
whose party is deeply divided on the issues of uranium mining and
nuclear power, said yesterday he did not support new uranium mines
beyond the three currently operating in Australia.
But he said to protect
and encourage investment in the mining industry, a federal Labor
government would not close any new uranium mines opened before it won
office. "We would not impose on the mining industry a sovereign risk
issue," Mr Beazley said. "When Labor comes into office federally,
whatever mines are in operation, they will be sustained."
But he warned
supporters of the expansion of the industry - such as ALP resources
spokesman Martin Ferguson - that Australia was as far into uranium
mining "as we want to be".
He also categorically
ruled out Australia moving to nuclear power, saying the world had not
resolved proliferation risks and the issue of radioactive waste.
Mr Beazley's commitment
would effectively allow Australia to have any number of uranium mines
beyond the three in operation - Ranger in the Northern Territory and
Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia.
A fourth site -
Honeymoon in South Australia - secured construction approval from the
previous state Liberal government. The Labor Government is allowing
that site to proceed despite the fact that it technically breaches the
national ALP's "three mines" policy.
Labor and the Howard
Gov :ernment yesterday backed uraninn .export&to China. However,
Peter Costello said any attempt by a sovereign government to buy
Australian uranium deposits raised "whole new policy questions" and
would need to be carefully scrutinised.
China and Australia are
negotiating a safeguards agreement allowing for uranium to be bought by
Beijing and potentially allowing Chinese companies to explore in
Australia.
But the Treasurer, in
China, said there was "no need" for China to buy directly into
Australian uranium mines because it could get what it needed from
Australian suppliers.
Chinese state-owned
companies were among several potential bidders for WMC Resources, owner
of the Olympic Dam mine. Asked whether Australia would have any
objection to China buying into Olympic Dam, now owned by BHP Billiton,
Mr Costello said that under foreign investment guidelines, "where there
is a sovereign government it is scrutinised even more carefully".
--------------------->
India may seek uranium
deal
By Richard Baker
October 21, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/india-may-seek-uranium-deal/2005/10/20/1129775901934.html>
INDIA has signalled it
may pursue closer nuclear ties with Australia as it seeks to expand its
domestic nuclear power capacity.
A senior Indian high
commission official told The Age India had been "discussing civilian
nuclear co-operation with several countries, including Australia".
Civilian nuclear
co-operation involves the supply of nuclear technologies and materials.
India has recently reached such agreements with the US and Canada.
Asked if India had
sought to buy Australian uranium, the senior official said it was too
early to discuss any nuclear co-operation talks with Australia.
However, it is believed India has discussed civilian nuclear
co-operation and possible changes to the rules of the 44-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group with Australian officials at recent meetings in New
Delhi and Vienna.
As part of its deal
with India, the US pledged to "work with friends and allies to adjust
international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy co-operation
and trade with India".
India has agreed to
separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, placing the
former under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. But its
nuclear weapons facilities are not included in the agreement.
A Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade spokesman said the department had discussed nuclear
issues with India but was not aware of any request to buy Australian
uranium. A senior Federal Government source said Australia would not
sell uranium to India because it was not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India has 14 civilian
nuclear power reactors and plans to build another nine to produce
20,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2020. It has three
uranium mines but its uranium resources are modest and it will require
more to expand its nuclear power capacity. The US this week asked the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, which includes Australia, to amend its rules
to give India a permanent exception to international rules barring
nuclear co-operation.
The Bush Administration
is seeking changes in US law and international regulations to let India
obtain restricted items, including nuclear fuel. The US hopes the
arrangement will come into force next year.
This would effectively
recognise India as the sixth nuclear-weapons state, along with the US,
Britain, France, Russia and China.
But the US deal has
attracted some criticism. A report by the US Congressional Research
Service warned that nuclear co-operation with India would contravene
the multilateral export control guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group.
To supply uranium to
India, the Indian and Australian Governments would form an agreement to
ensure Australian uranium was used for non-military purposes. Australia
is also negotiating the supply of uranium to China.
The head of the
Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre,
Hugh White, said Australia had "in effect accepted India as a de facto
nuclear power".
With MICHELLE GRATTAN,
REUTERS
--------------------->
China's build-up
'scaring region'
Catherine Armitage,
China correspondent
October 21, 2005
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16983211%255E2703,00.html>
CHINA should come clean
about its nuclear missile build-up because it is unsettling the region,
US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday after becoming the
first foreigner to visit China's nuclear missile command centre near
the capital Beijing.
Mr Rumsfeld said the US
believed China was expanding the scope of its nuclear missile arsenal
to reach well beyond the Pacific region and cover much of the world. As
a result, a number of countries in the region were concerned about
China's intentions, he said.
"Those advances in
China's strategic strike capacity raise questions, particularly when
there's an imperfect understanding of such developments on the part of
others," he said in a speech to future Chinese military leaders at the
Academy of Military Sciences in Beijing.
"Greater clarity would
generate more certainty in the region," he said, reiterating the theme
of his visit: that China's rise as a global power made it more
answerable to the rest of the world.
China earlier rejected
Mr Rumsfeld's request to visit its national military command centre in
Beijing's Western Hills during a two-day stay which ended yesterday
when he flew to South Korea.
But the visit to the
Second Artillery Corps headquarters, which operates China's expanding
nuclear missile arsenal, was seen by US officials as a long-awaited
breakthrough in the effort to rebuild mutual US-China military contacts.
Officials briefing
reporters on condition of anonymity said Mr Rumsfeld had signed a very
large and empty new visitors' book at the Second Artillery Corps at
Qinghe outside Beijing.
In an armed conflict,
China would not be the first to use nuclear weapons, the commander of
China's nuclear missile forces Jing Zhiyuan told Mr Rumsfeld,
reiterating China's often-repeated assurance.
General Jing also
disavowed as "completely groundless" the July suggestion by another
Chinese general that if the US interfered over Taiwan, China would
target it for a nuclear strike.
At the military
academy, Mr Rumsfeld repeated the US suspicion that China was spending
much more on its military than it discloses.
China's Defence
Minister, Cao Gangchuan, rejected that assertion the previous day,
saying the demands of economic development on China's public purse are
too great to allow it to spend as much on its military as the US says
it does.
"To the extent that
defence expenditures are judged to be considerably higher than what is
published, neighbours understandably wonder what the reason might be
for the disparity," Mr Rumsfeld said yesterday.
A Pentagon report in
July estimated China's military spending could grow to $US90billion
this year, more than triple the published figure of $US29billion.
The Pentagon report
also said China was adding about 100 missiles a year to its arsenal of
up to 730 short-range missiles pointed at Taiwan, and now had missile
coverage of most of the US as well as Australia, Russia and India.
Even so, Mr Rumsfeld
has been generally upbeat about the visit. He said he was convinced
China wanted to "find activities and ways we can work with each other
that will contribute to demystifying what we see of them and what they
see of us".
US-China military ties
have been all but frozen since 2001 when a US spy plane was forced down
over China and its crew held hostage.
After South Korea, Mr
Rumsfeld visits Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Lithuania. Each of those
countries has contributed troops or technical support in the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
--------------------->
STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO
URANIUM EXPANSION
--------------------->
Morgan poll of 662
Australians found:
70% support for no more
uranium mines (compared to 23% support for more uranium mines).
77% of ALP supporters
think there should be no more uranium mines.
54% support for uranium
mining (lowest since 1979) and 38% opposed. For this question, people
were asked: “Do you think Australia should or should not develop and
export uranium for peaceful purposes?” No doubt there would have been
fewer supporters if the question was “Do you think Australia should or
should not develop and export uranium despite the risk of diversion to
produce nuclear WMDs?” Or: “Do you think Australia should or should not
develop and export uranium despite the outrageous racism of the uranium
industry?”
Full results at
<www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3908>
--------------------->
HONEYMOON URANIUM MINE ON
HOLD
--------------------->
(NB: The claim that
Honeymoon has all necessary government licences is false.)
No Honeymoon for
Southern Cross
Ben Sharples
Tuesday, October 11,
2005
SOUTHERN Cross
Resources has shelved what was widely touted to become
Australia's fourth uranium mine until improvements in the uranium
price and mine life is achieved.
Southern Cross chief
executive Mark Wheatley told the Australian Uranium Conference in
Fremantle that the Honeymoon project in South Australia was small
and required better economics for it to get the development green
light. However he didn't totally rule that out happening in the
future.
"With the recoveries,
ISL [in-situ leaching] is an inherently risky type of operation
and you need to have very robust economics, so we're taking a
very conservative approach to the development of the [Honeymoon]
project," Wheatley said.
Despite the decision,
Wheatley said mining permits were in place and there was no risk
that anyone could take them away, irrespective of the political
landscape in Australia.
Wheatley also
highlighted the favourable political climate towards uranium
mining in South Africa, where the company plans to focus its
efforts on the much larger Dominion and Rietkuil properties.
"In South Africa there
is less differentiation between uranium and other mining
projects…the Africa National Congress is very supportive of
uranium mining," Wheatley said. "You don't have the same sort of
issues to get these projects up and manage them as you do in
Australia."
The Dominion project is
pegged to come online in 2007 at an initial production rate of
4Mlbs per annum over a mine life of around 20 years.
© 2005
MiningNews.net - www.miningnews.net
--------------------->
BOB HAWKE’S INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR DUMP
PROPOSAL
--------------------->
For some background on
plans to use Australia for an international high-level nuclear waste
dump ...
<http://www.anawa.org.au/waste/index.html>
<www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/#otherozwaste>
--------------------->
N-waste our duty: Labor
MP
Mark Dodd and Dennis
Shanahan
October 12, 2005
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16892230%255E2702,00.html>
LABOR frontbencher
Martin Ferguson has declared Australia must accept some responsibility
for global nuclear waste, just weeks after the party distanced itself
from Bob Hawke's suggestion of an international nuclear waste dump in
the central desert.
Mr Ferguson,
responsible for Labor's energy and mining policy, said yesterday that
the Australian community was not yet ready to accept the return of
nuclear waste from its uranium exports.
But he said the nation
had to "face up" to the "responsibilities that come with being the
owners of globally important nuclear energy resources".
He said these included
"making sure that nuclear waste materials are safely and peacefully
disposed of for the long term" and making uranium available to
countries that were less fortunate than Australia in terms of energy
self-sufficiency.
"It is time for all
Australians to engage properly in a constructive debate about the
strategic importance of Australia's uranium resources," he told a
mining conference in Fremantle.
Labor is increasingly
divided over the issue of uranium mining and exports, with Mr Ferguson
pushing for a renewed debate on mining and nuclear power after two
decades of sticking to the party's "three mines" policy.
However, Labor states
and territories such as Western Australia and Queensland refuse to
allow the development of their uranium deposits. And powerful unions
remain implacably opposed to uranium mining and nuclear power.
Mr Ferguson said
yesterday a proper debate on nuclear energy had been avoided for so
long that the nation was unprepared to deal with global energy issues.
Three weeks ago Mr
Hawke, the former Labor prime minister, created a storm when he said
Australia should, "as an act of economic responsibility", accept the
world's nuclear waste. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley labelled the
concept "a bit outside the platform", with Mr Ferguson repeating his
view that the nation was not "ready to accept a high-level waste
repository".
However, Mr Ferguson's
support for a debate on Labor policy - which limits Australia to three
operating uranium mines - was greeted by loud applause from more than
300 delegates at the Australian Uranium Conference.
He said avoidance of
the nuclear debate meant "we are unprepared as a nation to deal with
the global energy and associated climate change issues that now loom
large on the horizon".
"As a nation, we don't
have a clear view about the role of nuclear power in the world. We
don't have a clear view about the strategic nature of Australia's
uranium resources.
"We do not even have a
solution for the safe disposal of low and intermediate-level nuclear
waste generated in our own country, let alone a clear view of the
solution for high-level nuclear waste generated around the globe from
nuclear power operations."
After Canada, Australia
is the world's second-biggest exporter of yellowcake. But that could
change if the South Australian Government gives the go-ahead for a
planned expansion of the massive Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP
Billiton.
--------------------->
Revolutionise economy
with renewables
Media release
Australian Conservation
Foundation
27 September 2005
The Australian
Conservation Foundation has urged the Federal Government to reject the
idea that Australia become a dump for the world’s nuclear waste, saying
we should instead concentrate on becoming a world leader in safe, clean
renewable energy technologies.
Former Prime Minister
Bob Hawke told a meeting in Sydney last night that because Australia
had some of the “geologically safest places in the world for the
storage of nuclear waste” we should “revolutionise” our economy and
charge other countries to store radioactive nuclear waste.
“Getting more deeply
involved in the dirty, dangerous nuclear industry is not the path we
should be taking,” said ACF Executive Director Don Henry.
“In fact, it’s a debate
that’s already been had. Parliaments in South Australia, Western
Australia and the Northern Territory have already made the dumping of
international nuclear waste illegal.
“Australia has probably
the best supplies of solar and wind energy in the world. We have
the potential to become an international leader in the development of
clean, safe energy sources.
“To revolutionise our
economy we should be looking at becoming the world’s solar energy
factory, not the global nuclear tailings dump.
“Nuclear power capacity
in Europe is falling and is expected to drop 25% over the next 15
years. In contrast, wind power and solar power are growing by
20-30% internationally each year. In 2004, renewable energy
generation added nearly three times as much net generating capacity as
nuclear power.
“It’s worth remembering
that every Australian State and Territory – and the Australian public,
when asked in opinion polls – remains overwhelmingly opposed to the
transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste.”
The latest Newspoll,
released today, found more than 83% of respondents were opposed to
Australia taking nuclear waste from countries that buy Australian
uranium. The majority are also opposed to Australia exporting
uranium to China.
--------------------->
Australian bid for
global nuclear dump dismissed as NGOs say they've seen it all before
By Sam Bond
Environmental Data
Interactive Exchange (UK)
30-September-2005
<www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=10608&channel=0>
Former Australian prime
minister Bob Hawke has enraged NGOs and made politicians wince by
suggesting the county's sparsely populated desert interior be used as a
nuclear dump by the rest of the world.
Describing it as 'an
act of environmental and economic sanity' the former Labour PM outlined
the idea at a meeting of Australian alumni of Oxford University on
Tuesday, September 27, proposing the income raised from the project
could be used on social and environment initiatives.
Mr Hawke told the
gathering that Australia had the ideal geology for safe storage and
plenty of empty space.
Politicians back home
have politely dismissed the scheme, while anti-nuclear campaign groups
such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of the
Earth have even more readily condemned it as a bad idea, and an
unoriginal one at that.
"In the late 1990's a
consortium called Pangea Resources, that included BNFL, began testing
the waters for an international waste dump in West Australia," Dave
Sweeney, anti-nuclear campaigner for the ACF told edie. "When the
news became public there was a massive backlash."
He said Hawke's
comments had not helped at a time when the country was already having
difficult deciding to do with its own waste.
"Australia is currently
having a major - and divisive - public fight over how best to manage
our existing modest radioactive waste inventory," he said.
"In 2004, after eight
years of trying to foist a national waste site on to South Australia,
the federal government abandoned this plan and is now trying to impose
the dump on the Northern Territory, against strong local and indigenous
opposition."
Mr Sweeney's colleague,
Don Henry, ACF executive director, said there were less risky ways to
make Australia a central player in global energy markets.
"Getting more deeply
involved in the dirty, dangerous nuclear industry is not the path we
should be taking," he argued.
"Australia has probably
the best supplies of solar and wind energy in the world. "We have the
potential to become an international leader in the development of
clean, safe energy sources.
"To revolutionise our
economy we should be looking at becoming the world's solar energy
factory, not the global nuclear tailings dump."
Friends of the Earth
Australia's Dr Jim Green questioned the scientific, and moral, basis of
Hawke's vision.
"Australia has no
responsibility to accept high-level waste from overseas," he told edie.
"The benefits of
nuclear power accrue largely to the countries using nuclear power and
only secondarily to uranium supplying countries.
"The claim that
Australia has the best geology for a high-level waste dump is false.
That also makes the questionable assumption that dumping is the best
way to manage radioactive waste."
He went further, saying
rather than act as a global sponge for waste Australia should help nip
the problem in the bud by refusing to be the world's nuclear quarry and
ban the export of the country's huge uranium supply.
"Australia has a
responsibility to ban uranium exports because of the massive problem of
weapons proliferation, the ongoing and frequent pattern of 'peaceful'
nuclear materials and facilities being used in nuclear WMD programs,"
he said.
"We also have a
responsibility to ban uranium mining because of the
intractable problem of
nuclear waste - not a single repository exists
anywhere in the world
for the disposal of high-level waste from nuclear power, and processes
such as reprocessing and transmutation create as many problems as they
solve."
--------------------->
ROXBY DOWNS - WATER
--------------------->
Great Artesian Basin
Matter of Interest, Sandra Kanck, South Australian Member of the
Legislative Council
MATTERS OF INTEREST
Wednesday 14 September
2005
GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK:
Two days ago I asked questions about the limitations of the water
supply of the Great Artesian Basin, and I have previously asked
questions of minister Holloway about the proposed expansion of Olympic
Dam and the consequent water usage. At the present time, 33 megalitres
of water a day are being drawn from two existing bores that Western
Mining Corporation sunk in the Great Artesian Basin some years ago.
Yesterday, The Advertiser printed a most disturbing article about that
mine and its water usage. It revealed that the new owners, BHP
Billiton, estimate that it will need 150 megalitres of water every day
for 70 years when the mine is expanded. I do note that minister
Holloway earlier today in question time said 120 megalitres.
However, the most
disturbing aspect was the news that BHP Billiton does not want to build
a desalination plant because it would be too expensive. The alternative
that it is canvassing now is to sink a new bore into the Great Artesian
Basin and build a 330 kilometre pipeline to Roxby Downs and Olympic Dam
from that bore. It is a straight economic decision because the
desalination option would cost BHP Billiton an extra $160 million. If
we allow BHP Billiton to exploit and scavenge the Great Artesian Basin,
who will bear the real cost of that? Obviously it will not be BHP
Billiton. I do not expect much from a government that fawned, even in
opposition, about the expansion of Roxby Downs in 1996. Its delight at
the introduction of that bill was an embarrass-ment to watch. It was a
bill that should have gone to a select committee, but the Liberal
government combined with the Labor opposition to suspend standing
orders so that the bill could move through quickly.
Had we had the select
committee that was required, the issue of water usage might have been
able to be properly investigated. Nevertheless, in a speech I made
opposing that bill, I went to great length to draw attention to the
implica-tions of the increase in water usage from the then 15
megalitres a day up to 42 megalitres a day. At the committee stage, I
moved an amendment, as follows:
Nothing in this act or
the indenture prevents the imposition of rates or charges to discourage
excessive depletion of artesian water supply.
Did I get any support
for this in this chamber? Apart from my colleague the Hon. Mike
Elliott, the answer is: no. The Hon. Mr Lucas, who had carriage of the
bill here, said that the government could not support it because it
would be in contravention of section 33 of the indenture. That was
convenient excuse because, as we all know, indentures can be amended,
and that was exactly what we were doing at that time.
The Hon. Ron Roberts
backed the position of the government, but he did say that, if the
Democrats were proven to be right in 20 years, it would give him no
pleasure to admit it. The consequence of that refusal of support by
Liberal and Labor means that Western Mining Corporation had - and now
BHP Billiton has - access to 42 megalitres of water per day basically
for as long as it want to use it. What does 42 megalitres of water look
like? Imagine a six metre diameter swimming pool and replicate that to
a height of 1.5 kilometres. That is what 42 megalitres a day looks
like. And now BHP Billiton wants to extend that use; in fact, it wants
to triple that use. So, take that tower of water 4∏ kilometres into the
sky, if members want to get an understanding of how much water it wants
to use from the Great Artesian Basin.
I think it is now time
for the government to look very closely at section 33 of the indenture
act and consider that a charge be levied for the use of that water
because, if BHP Billiton is going to use up a non-renewable resource,
at least the state should get some recompense for it. Yesterday's
newspaper article gave no indication of what other corporate welfare
BHP Billiton anticipates from the South Australian government as part
of this expansion. I hope, as the minister suggested earlier today,
that there will be an EIS. Hopefully, the federal government will be
tougher than this state government has been, because we surely must say
no to such massive exploitation of this very fragile water resource.
--------------------->
KOONGARRA/KAKADU WIN
--------------------->
French mining of Kakadu
unlikely
By Lindsay Murdoch in
Kakadu
October 10, 2005
<www.smh.com.au/news/national/french-mining-of-kakadu-unlikely/2005/10/09/1128796409765.html>
The Howard Government
has in effect ruled out the French nuclear power giant Cogema mining
its high-grade uranium deposit in Kakadu National Park, despite soaring
world prices of the ore.
Cogema faces a "very
high hurdle" to expand uranium mining in an ecologically sensitive
catchment in the World Heritage-listed park, 250 kilometres south-east
of Darwin, said Greg Hunt, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister
for Environment and Heritage.
But Mr Hunt, who has
federal ministerial responsibility for Kakadu, left open the
possibility of Rio Tinto-owned Energy Resources Australia Limited
expanding its operations in the park by opening the controversial
Jabiluka mine, one of the world's richest known deposits of uranium,
worth an estimated $10.5 billion.
Mr Hunt said that
although he strongly supports the use of uranium worldwide to reduce
greenhouse gases, Cogema would have to overcome World Heritage concerns
before being allowed to mine its 14,000-tonne deposit at Koongarra near
the spectacular Nourlangie Rock.
In August, the Howard
Government bypassed the Northern Territory Government's policy of no
new uranium mines, declaring mining companies would get the go-ahead to
exploit more than $12 billion of known uranium deposits in the
Territory provided they won support from traditional owners and met
environmental concerns.
Cogema, one of the
world's biggest uranium miners and a big nuclear plant supplier, has
been canvassing the support of Koongarra's traditional owners since a
five-year moratorium imposed by traditional owners against the mine
proposal expired last April.
But Mr Hunt described
Nourlangie's landscape as "one of the park's great visual outlooks",
and "perhaps the highest citadel of rock art and history" in Kakadu.
Legally, he could not pre-empt any decision about Koongarra, but his
job was to protect Kakadu's heritage for future generations.
"I think there are
incredibly high hurdles in relation to Koongarra. It's right in the
middle of a remarkably sensitive site."
Mr Hunt made clear
during a visit to Kakadu that the Howard Government would support
Energy Resources Australia's push to open Jabiluka as long as the it
reached agreement with traditional owners of the area.
The Mirarr people, the
traditional owners of Jabiluka, recently told a parliamentary inquiry
into uranium resources they were worried about any further mining on
their land.
--------------------->
LABOR AND LABOUR DIVIDED ON
NUKES
--------------------->
Labor MP radiates
nuclear division
By Nassim Khadem
Canberra
October 12, 2005
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-mp-radiates-nuclear-division/2005/10/11/1128796526596.html>
DEEP divisions within
the Labor Party on the nuclear power issue surfaced again yesterday
when a Federal Labor MP appeared before the uranium industry arguing
the case for nuclear power as a solution to climate change.
Speaking at the
Australian Uranium Conference in Fremantle, shadow minister for
industry and resources Martin Ferguson said the debate about nuclear
power had been swept under the carpet for too long.
He said it was time for
Australians to engage in a debate about the "strategic importance of
Australia's uranium resources, not only for our nation, but for the
global community, and particularly, the fast growing countries of the
Asia-Pacific Partnership".
The partnership
includes Australia, the United States, China, Japan, India and South
Korea, and the Federal Government is working on an agreement to develop
"clean" technological solutions to climate change as an alternative to
Kyoto.
Mr Ferguson said
Australia was the second biggest exporter of uranium in the world and
with the planned expansion of the Olympic Dam in South Australia, we
would become the biggest in a few years. "Whether we like it or not,
Australia is undeniably part of the global nuclear cycle," he said.
Mr Ferguson said
despite Labor's commitment to Kyoto, it was necessary to consider other
initiatives such as nuclear power to address climate change.
"We supply almost
one-quarter of the world's mined uranium and export to three countries
within the partnership — Japan, the United States and South Korea," he
said. "It is clear that, with the likely growth in nuclear power
capacity around the world, uranium will be in greater and greater
demand."
Labor's three mines
uranium policy prohibits the expansion of uranium mining in Australia.
Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley's spokesman, Colin Campbell, said while Labor supported uranium
exports to China, it was against a further expansion and did not see
nuclear power as the solution to climate change.
"The Labor Party does
not support the establishment of a nuclear power industry in
Australia," he said. "But it recognises that many countries are
following that (nuclear power) path."
Labor MP Peter Garrett
— who has previously come out strongly against using nuclear power as a
way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — said Mr Ferguson's speech
appeared to dismiss Kyoto.
"My understanding of
Labor's current policy is that Kyoto is a fundamental part of any
national response to climate change and it is perplexing if it is
downplayed in any discussion about energy policy," he said.
Shadow minister for the
environment Anthony Albanese said Labor's view on addressing climate
change was to ratify Kyoto, not to use nuclear power.
"Labor's position is
clear. We are opposed to a nuclear power industry. We think Australia
is as far into the nuclear cycle as we want to go," Mr Albanese said.
--------------------->
Uranium policy causes
labour fission
Katharine Murphy
September 27, 2005
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16732917%255E2702,00.html>
THE union representing
uranium workers in the Northern Territory has dug in over its
opposition to an expansion of the industry, deepening a split in the
labour movement.
Helen Creed, national
president of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union,
said federal Labor should maintain its three-mines policy and any new
mines would be opposed by her members.
"We don't see any need
to change Labor Party policy," Ms Creed said.
"I don't see a move
within LHMU to change our policy. Our position is a long-standing one
which is opposition to uranium mining."
The LHMU's national
position puts it at odds with another of Australia's largest unions,
the right-wing Australian Workers Union, which also covers uranium
mining workers. AWU president Bill Ludwig said last week that his union
would support Labor scrapping "three mines".
Mr Ludwig also urged
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to axe Queensland's ban on uranium
mining.
The divisions follow a
concerted push by Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson to expand
uranium mining and generate debate over Australia's future energy needs.
As part of a coming
televised forum on nuclear energy, Mr Ferguson continues to argue for
an expansion of the uranium industry.
"I'm talking about
reality. Have a look at what's happening in Asia. The growth and energy
demand is just going through the roof," Mr Ferguson told the SBS
television forum, to be screened tonight.
But the LHMU's position
has been to represent workers in the industry while maintaining
ideological opposition to uranium mining.
Ms Creed said the
union's recent national council meeting had not considered any motions
to change that position.
A new poll shows
Australians may be warming to the idea of domestic nuclear power, with
more people supporting the concept than opposing it.
A Newspoll taken for
SBS shows that 47 per cent of people support using nuclear power for
electricity generation, while 40per cent are opposed to it.
Australian men are
solidly in favour of nuclear power, with 60per cent of men in the
1200-person sample expressing support. Women were less enthusiastic,
with only 35 per cent supporting nuclear electricity generation.
But the community
remains steadfastly opposed to importing nuclear waste from the
countries that buy Australian uranium. More than four in five, or 83per
cent, say they oppose bringing waste home.
And a small majority,
53 per cent, oppose the Howard Government's efforts to export
Australian uranium to China.
The Howard Government
has sparked a debate on nuclear power and uranium mining by arguing for
a substantial expansion of the industry in Australia to take advantage
of a trebling in the world price of uranium.
Canberra is negotiating
an export agreement with China which would see Australian uranium sold
to Beijing for civilian use.
But Australians are
uneasy with the idea of selling uranium to China, according to the poll.
Thirty-one per cent of
the sample said they would support selling uranium to Beijing, while 53
per cent opposed the idea.
--------------------->
DIRTY BOMB THREAT +
PROLIFERATION RISKS
--------------------->
N-terror the worst
menace
John Kerin
October 11, 2005
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16880079%255E2702,00.html>
A JEMAAH Islamiah
radioactive "dirty bomb" attack on Australia ranks among the
Government's worst terror nightmares.
Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer, launching a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
report into weapons of mass destruction, said a handful of rogue
states, such as North Korea and Iran, were jeopardising global security
by trafficking in weapons.
"We know that a number
of terrorist groups, such as al-Qa'ida, are seeking nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons, and that in our region groups like Jemaah
Islamiah have similar ambitions," Mr Downer said.
"Osama bin Laden has
declared openly that he would use such weapons ... and Jemaah
Islamiah's spiritual leader, Abu Bakar Bashir, recently stated that the
use of nuclear weapons was justified 'if necessary'."
The report --
"Australia's role in fighting proliferation" -- says al-Qa'ida-linked
groups such as JI lack the capacity to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons of mass destruction.
But it suggests the
terrorists could either steal materials from insecure nuclear
facilities or obtain them from proliferating states or underground
networks.
The report adds that
poor security at nuclear facilities in Russia during the 1990s has
added to fears that radioactive material was smuggled out of the
country and remains unaccounted for.
The report says while a
"dirty bomb" -- which combines explosives with radioactive material --
would cause mass panic, it might not produce mass casualties.
But Ross Babbage, head
of new defence think tank the Kokoda Foundation, said authorities,
particularly in the US, remained deeply troubled about the threat of a
dirty bomb attack.
"There is great unease
in the US that some nuclear material was smuggled out of Russia in the
late 1990s and it still remains unaccounted for," Professor Babbage
said.
"A truck loaded with
some radioactive material and conventional explosives could have a
devastating impact on a city. It could render an area unliveable for a
year or perhaps longer."
--------------------->
MI5 unmasks covert arms
programmes
Document names 300
organisations seeking nuclear and WMD technology
Ian Cobain and Ewen
MacAskill
Saturday October 8, 2005
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1587751,00.html
The determination of
countries across the Middle East and Asia to develop nuclear arsenals
and other weapons of mass destruction is laid bare by a secret British
intelligence document which has been seen by the Guardian.
More than 360 private
companies, university departments and government organisations in eight
countries, including the Pakistan high commission in London, are
identified as having procured goods or technology for use in weapons
programmes.
The length of the list,
compiled by MI5, suggests that the arms trade supermarket is bigger
than has so far been publicly realised. MI5 warns against exports to
organisations in Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, Syria and Egypt and to
beware of front companies in the United Arab Emirates, which appears to
be a hub for the trade.
The disclosure of the
list comes as the Nobel peace prize was yesterday awarded to Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the UN watchdog responsible for combating
proliferation. The Nobel committee said they had made the award because
of the apparent deadlock in disarmament and the danger that nuclear
weapons could spread "both to states and to terrorist groups".
The MI5 document,
entitled Companies and Organisations of Proliferation Concern, has been
compiled in an attempt to prevent British companies inadvertently
exporting sensitive goods or expertise to organisations covertly
involved in WMD programmes. Despite the large number of bodies
identified, the document says the list is not exhaustive.
It states: "It is not
suggested that the companies and organisations on the list have
committed an offence under UK legislation. However, in addition to
conducting non-proliferation related business, they have procured goods
and/or technology for weapons of mass destruction programmes."
The 17-page document
identifies 95 Pakistani organisations and government bodies, including
the Pakistan high commission in London, as having assisted in the
country's nuclear programme. The list was compiled two years ago,
shortly after the security service mounted a surveillance operation at
the high commission which is the only diplomatic institution on the
list. Abdul Basit, the deputy high commissioner, said: "It is absolute
rubbish for Pakistan to be included. We take exception to these links."
Some 114 Iranian
organisations, including chemical and pharmaceutical companies and
university medical schools, are identified as having acquired nuclear,
chemical, biological or missile technology. The document also attempts
to shed some light on the nuclear ambitions of Egypt and Syria: a
private chemical company in Egypt is identified as having procured
technology for use in a nuclear weapons programme, while the Syrian
atomic energy commission faces a similar charge. Eleven Israeli
organisations appear on the list, along with 73 Indian bodies, which
are said to have been involved in WMD programmes.
The document also
highlights concerns that companies in Malta and Cyprus could have been
used as fronts for WMD programmes. The United Arab Emirates is named as
"the most important" of the countries where front companies may have
been used, and 24 private firms there are identified as having acquired
WMD technology for Iran, Pakistan and India.
A spokesman for the UAE
government said it had always worked "very closely" with the British
authorities to counter the proliferation of WMD.
--------------------->
Nuclear option
escalates jihad threat
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16774533%255E25377,00.html>
October 01, 2005
IN the past 12 months,
influential Islamist jihadist websites have carried an increased
discussion on the ethics and strategy of using weapons of mass
destruction as part of the global terror campaign. In the week when
state and federal governments in Australia have announced tougher rules
to monitor and restrict possible and suspected terrorists, we have to
take this discussion very seriously.
The Western
policy-makers who deal with this do so cautiously. Virtually nobody in
authority is being alarmist. But it is the WMD, especially the nuclear,
dimension that raises terrorism from the spectrum of gruesome
criminality through sustained insurgency and up to genuine strategic
threat.
In an opinion piece for
The Wall Street Journal two weeks ago Prime Minister John Howard, in
expressing bitter disappointment at the UN's failure to do anything
serious about nuclear non-proliferation, noted that "al-Qa'ida has made
no secret of its ambitions to acquire -- and to use -- WMD".
The authoritative
discussion of this option among several key religious figures in the
global jihadist network should give us serious pause. Former foreign
minister Gareth Evans, now head of the International Crisis Group,
while acknowledging the real dangers, was this week urging caution and
restraint in our response to terrorism.
But his words on
nuclear terrorism were sobering: "We know very well how limited our
capacity is, and always will be, to deny access to terrorist groups to
chemical and especially biological weapons. But the same is true of
nuclear weapons."
He spoke of the
"stockpiles of fissile material that litter the landscape of the former
Soviet Russia, and after the exposure in Pakistan we know far more than
we did about the global market for nuclear technology, materials and
expertise, and all of it is alarming ... the level of technical
sophistication required to make a nuclear explosive device is certainly
above the backyard level but it is not beyond competent professionals
... and there is enough [highly enriched] uranium and plutonium lying
around now to make some 240,000 such weapons. Much of it --
particularly in Russia -- is not just poorly but appallingly guarded."
In a new volume,
Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, published by the Hudson
Institution, Reuven Paz of the Israeli Herzliya Centre for the Study of
Terrorism, examines several definitive discussions and religious
rulings on the use of WMDs in jihadist websites.
Again, Paz is not
remotely alarmist. He notes the technical difficulty for terrorists in
using nuclear weapons and the relatively small number of such
discussions in the jihadist world. Nonetheless, they are disturbing.
In 2003 Saudi Sheikh
Naser bin Hamad al-Fahd published the first fatwa on the use of nuclear
weapons (he is now in jail in Saudi Arabia). Al-Fahd wrote: "If the
Muslims could defeat the infidels only by using these kinds of weapons,
it is allowed to use them, even if they kill all."
In a highly significant
move, he later published a long, theological defence, citing all the
relevant Islamic authorities and providing the kind of scholarly
argument for his position that is so important to the committed
jihadist. He discounted international law as this was not part of
Islamic law. He argued that the US had used WMDs in the past and it and
its allies possessed WMDs. He argued, with many recondite references,
that Muslims were enjoined to act to the full limit of their ability
and this logically necessitated the use of WMDs. His justification
covered the general question of using WMDs and the specific case of
using them now against the US.
As Paz comments: "Were
any Islamist group planning to use WMDs, they have now received the
necessary endorsement to do so from an Islamic point of view."
More recently, in
December last year, Abu Mus'ab al-Suri, a former leading theorist of
al-Qa'ida, published two documents on the "Islamist Global Resistance".
He argues that using WMDs is the only way for jihadists to fight the
West on equal terms and even goes so far as to urge Iran and North
Korea to keep developing their nuclear weapons, seeing them as
potential allies. This is particularly surprising as North Korea and
Iran are generally regarded as infidel regimes. Their mention in this
context demonstrates the flexibility and operational pragmatism even of
global jihadism's theoreticians.
He even criticises the
9/11 terrorist attacks in the US for not using WMDs, and comments: "If
I were consulted in the case of that operation I would advise the use
of planes from outside the US that would carry WMDs. Hitting the US
with WMDs was and is still very complicated. Yet it is possible after
all, with Allah's help, and more important than being possible, it is
vital ... the Muslim resistance elements [must] seriously consider this
difficult yet vital direction."
He is sceptical of the
ultimate strategic value of continued guerilla operations in Iraq,
believing they will not inflict a severe enough blow on the US.
He therefore writes:
"The ultimate choice is the destruction of the US by operations of
strategic symmetry through weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear,
chemical, or biological means, if the mujaheddin can achieve it with
the help of those who possess them or through buying them."
Most of this discussion
focuses on the US as the ultimate target. However, other nations in the
West are routinely mentioned and in many cases secular Muslim regimes
are demonised. While naturally what one may call the theoretical
discussions of the jihadists focus on the US, it is clear that
Australia, along with countless other nations, is a target.
Global jihadism is
truly protean; it keeps changing into something new. Suicide terrorism
has been a devastating and effective tactic, as well as a kind of
quasi-ideology of its own. But there is no reason to think it is the
end point of terrorist evolution.
None of this means
nuclear terrorism is just around the corner. But these sorts of
discussions have been pivotal to the development of terrorist tactics
in the past. That they are now concerning themselves with nuclear
terrorism in such a considered and comprehensive fashion commands our
closest attention.
--------------------->
New 'dirty bomb' labs
Simon Kearney
September 28, 2005
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16745760%255E601,00.html>
A NETWORK of
anti-terror chemical analysis laboratories will be set up in capital
cities amid fears Australia could be targeted by a "dirty bomb".
The laboratories will
be built to accelerate Australia's response to any chemical, biological
or nuclear terrorist attack.
They will work in
conjunction with a new $17.3million research facility in Canberra,
which will study ways of detecting and countering terrorist attacks
using chemical, biological or radioactive material.
John Howard said the
centre would be federally funded and run by the Australian Federal
Police.
A government source
said the new centre would be modelled on the AFP's bomb data centre,
which was integral to the investigation of the Bali terrorist bombings
in October 2002.
"It's going to be
pro-active, provide technical advice and intelligence, and it will try
and raise awareness of the threat posed," the source said.
In addition, the centre
will educate police forces around the country about the threat.
In recent years, the
federal Government has given money to state governments to purchase
equipment to respond to a chemical, biological or radiological (CBR)
attack.
John Howard said the
National Counter-Terrorism Committee would start developing a strategy
for dealing with such an attack.
A spokeswoman for
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said that while the Government did not
currently have a strategy for a CBR attack, Canberra was conscious of
the issue.
"It's an area we've
been building up," she said. "It's a cumulative and progressive effect
(and) has been the subject of funding allocations in previous budgets."
Australia's main
response to the possibility of a CBR attack has so far been the army's
Incident Response Regiment, based in Sydney and designed to respond
quickly to such an attack at home or overseas.
Australian Homeland
Security Research Centre director Athol Yates said the announcement was
recognition that the capacity of the Incident Response Regiment to
respond quickly enough with analysis was limited.
The new laboratories
would supplement and expand the existing capacity of hospital
laboratories in capital cities to analyse "white powder" threats.
Mr Yates said the new
funding was recognition that the threat of a "dirty bomb" was
increasingly playing on the mind of governments.
"It's recognition that
radiological, chemical and biological weapons are a realistic threat,
compared to in the past, where they were more a fanciful threat."
--------------------->
NUCLEAR POWER NO SOLUTION TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
--------------------->
Multiple copies of the
summary report by a coalition of six Australian environment and medical
groups, ‘Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change’ can be purchsed
at cost price, 55c, by contacting Jim Green
<[email protected]>, 0417 318368.
Summary plus long
version of the document at:
<www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm>
--------------------->
Unsafe, unsound and
unattainable
October 13, 2005
The Age
The real danger of
going nuclear is diverting policymakers from developing
non-polluting
alternatives and cutting waste, writes Alan Roberts.
NOW that the world has
generally accepted the overwhelming evidence for climate change, a
number of the usual and unusual suspects are proposing we develop safe
nuclear power as a safe option and as a fallback if oil runs out soon.
The nuclear industry has found some surprising friends, including James
Lovelock, developer of the Gaia hypothesis, who hopes that nuclear
energy will become a bridge to cleaner, safer technologies.
Debate about the
morality of nuclear power has become intense. However, it's purely
academic. There's no point in arguing about whether nuclear power
should be used to replace fossil fuel. The truth is it can't - it won't
do the job, and there isn't enough uranium.
Let's examine a few
facts.
A shift to nuclear
power - even if it were possible - would have no effect on the bulk of
the greenhouse gases emitted because most of these gases come from
outside the electrical power industry. For example, the 15 countries of
the European Union would still be pouring more than 3 million tonnes of
greenhouse gases into the air each year - close to 80 per cent of their
present emissions.
California's trucks and
cars emit more than 3 times as much greenhouse gas as its electrical
plants, and the humming of all-electric cars is still music of the
future. Assuming that no one is suggesting developing car-sized nuclear
reactors, emission levels will go on rising.
But what about the
fossil fuel use nuclear power can replace? Again, there's a lot of
illusion here. The construction of a nuclear station, and the mining
and processing of the fuel to supply it, requires significant energy
and the associated emissions. A detailed study by van Leeuwin and Smith
(cited in Arena Journal No.23) found that for poor grades of ore, more
energy is needed to process the uranium than the uranium delivers. If
you decide to build a nuclear power station, be prepared to wait 10
years. This, plus the years of operation before energy output exceeds
the energy taken to build it, means that shifting to nuclear would
initially worsen fossil fuel emissions.
Uranium is subject to
the same laws of diminishing returns as any other commodity that has to
be dug up. The uranium being mined now is generally from very rich ores
and these stocks would replace only about nine years of global
electricity production. With poorer ore grades, extraction would take
half to all of the energy the uranium could yield.
These findings emerge
from careful studies. Governments know that nuclear power is no magic
bullet for the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. So why have
government leaders in the US, Britain, France and China advocated
nuclear power - sometimes quite forcefully? Because it is an industry
essential to sustainability - of the military rather than the
environmental kind. Governments with a nuclear arsenal need the
services of a nuclear industry.
Quite aside from the
expanded risks of a nuclear accident - especially in poorly regulated
areas such as the developing world or the US - there would be the
increased risk of plutonium theft, and the more rigorous security
apparatus governments would need to create to counter it. It should be
obvious that if you're worried about "dirty bomb" terrorism, you
shouldn't scatter nuclear plants around as if they were coffee shop
chains.
But the greatest danger
in the "nuclear solution" lies in the power it has to divert attention
and investment funds from the policies that would deal with climate
change. Policies to stop wasting energy and to develop non-polluting
energy sources such as solar and wind power.
It is significant that
in Canada's Action Plan 2000, for its manufacturing, electricity
generation, transport, oil and gas, and building industries, the
recurring theme is about improving energy efficiency. In California,
authorities are taking steps to ensure cars perform better and that
solar panels on houses are subsidised.
Such policies can stem
the useless flow of wasted energy from polluting sources, which serves
no useful purpose but threatens the only planet we have. If we are not
hypnotised by the illusory glitter of some sweeping technological fix,
we can make our governments adopt them.
Alan Roberts taught
physics and environmental science at Monash University. His sources are
cited in full in a longer article in Arena Journal No.23.
--------------------->
Burning lessons you
should heed
By Alan Ramsey
October 22, 2005
<www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/burning-lessons-you-should-heed/2005/10/21/1129775959076.html>
IAN Lowe was a baker's
son in the tiny NSW country town of Caragabal ("West of Sydney, east of
Wyalong, south of Forbes, in the middle of bloody nowhere"). When he
was 10 the family moved to Tahmoor, south of Picton, on the old Hume
Highway. All his primary schooling went on in two-room schools.
Half a century later,
Ian Lowe is emeritus professor in science and technology at Brisbane's
Griffith University. He is one of Australia's foremost authorities on
climate and the environment. Five years ago he was named winner of the
Prime Minister's "environment award for outstanding individual
achievement". He is someone, you'd have to think, who knows what he is
talking about.
On Wednesday, as
president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Lowe spoke to a
lunchtime audience at the National Press Club. The ABC televised his
4000-word speech live at 1pm. It repeated it at 3.25am. The Herald
reported a segment of the speech in its Thursday issue. No other paper
that I saw reported it. No TV or radio current affairs programs picked
it up, either. The speech just died. The media wasn't interested.
And Lowe's core message?
First: "There is no
serious doubt that climate change is real. It is happening now and its
effects are accelerating." He detailed those effects and their growing
economic and social cost. Second: "The science is very clear. We need
to reduce global greenhouse pollution by about 60 per cent by the
middle of this century." He detailed how we should do this and what
will happen if we don't. Third: "Like most young physicists [in the
1960s], I saw nuclear power as the clean energy source of the future. I
want to tell you today why [35 years of] professional experience has
led me to reject that view."
And Ian Lowe had this
to say about Australia's uranium industry: "I suspect the real motive
of [renewed calls] for debate about nuclear power is to soften up the
Australian people to accept a possible expansion of uranium mining.
This is a modern version of an old debating trick. When we were
debating the report [on the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory] 30
years ago, then prime minister Malcolm Fraser claimed that an
'energy-starved world' needed our uranium, conjuring up the picture of
small children freezing in the dark if we didn't sell it. This was a
transparent attempt to portray a crass commercial operation as a moral
virtue, based on the untrue claim the world needed nuclear power.
"I wonder how much the
current debate about nuclear power has to do with BHP Billiton's
planned expansion of the Roxby Downs uranium mine in South Australia?
The company has applied to the Commonwealth and South Australian
governments to take from the Great Artesian Basin five times more water
than it currently does. Plan B is for the company to build a
desalination plant, costing around $160 million more than extracting
the extra water from the Basin, [which, in turn] could threaten the
fragile Mound Springs ecosystem in the desert.
"The Big Australian
should be warned it will not get away with making a big mess in the
South Australian outback."
One of the more
startling bits of evidence Lowe offered of the appalling waste of
energy by Australians was this: "Reducing waste is by far the cheapest
way to reduce greenhouse pollution [by coal-fired electricity]. Did you
know that more than 10 per cent of household electricity in this
country is used keeping appliances like TVs and video players on
standby?"
None of this was
thought newsworthy. If you didn't see the ABC's lunchtime telecast or
the repeat at 3.25am on Thursday - neither of which advertised who was
speaking and about what - then you stayed ignorant of the views of one
of our leading scientific minds on the paramount issue of the new
century: the very survival of life on our planet. Your mass media
thinks it doesn't rate. Neither do the politicians.
Get hold of Lowe's
speech. It is utterly compelling.
(Full speech
immediately below)
--------------------->
Is nuclear power part
of Australia’s global warming solutions?
By Professor Ian Lowe
AO, ACF President
Address to the National
Press Club, October 19, 2005
<www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=582>
I begin by
acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. One
of the foundations of a sustainable future must be reconciliation with
the Indigenous people of this country.
Forty years ago, I was
preparing for my final exams. Having studied electrical engineering and
science part-time for seven years at the University of New South Wales,
I did well enough to spend the following year doing Honours in physics.
I then went to the UK for doctoral studies at the University of York,
supported by the UK Atomic Energy Authority. At the time, like most
young physicists, I saw nuclear power as the clean energy source of the
future. I want to tell you today why my professional experience has led
me to reject that view.
I was nominated to
speak here today by the Australian Conservation Foundation, of which I
am President, and The Natural Edge Project, of which I am co-patron
with former Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen. ACF has been a leading
independent force for conservation for nearly forty years. With about
30,000 members and supporters, ACF works with community, business and
government, inspiring people to achieve a healthy environment for all
Australians. The Natural Edge Project is a sustainable development
think tank hosted in-kind by Engineers Australia. Both organisations
are staffed by dedicated people who work tirelessly for the good of our
nation. It is a real honour to be associated with ACF and The Natural
Edge Project.
There is no serious
doubt that climate change is real, it is happening now and its effects
are accelerating. It is already causing serious economic impacts:
reduced agricultural production, increased costs of severe events like
fires and storms, and the need to consider radical, energy intensive
and costly water supply measures such as desalination plants.
In the discussions
leading up to the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases, the Australian
government demanded a uniquely generous target. It justified this
stance by claiming that being a responsible global citizen would cause
unacceptable economic damage. There was never any convincing evidence
for this claim.
More importantly, it
took no account at all of the huge costs that climate change would
impose on us. Extreme weather events, like the Sydney hailstorm or the
Canberra bushfires, lost farm production, lost tourism from a bleached
Great Barrier Reef, and the commissioning of desalination plants have
imposed large economic costs, far more than any credible estimate of
the cost of reducing our greenhouse pollution.
Munich Re, the largest
re-insurance company in the world, has estimated that climate change
will cost the global economy $300 billion per annum by 2050 if action
is not taken.
The United States is
currently reeling from the staggering $200 billion clean-up bill
following Hurricane Katrina. While no single storm can be directly
attributed to climate change, increased ocean surface temperatures
around the globe mean we too can expect more frequent, more intense
storms. We almost had our own Katrina-style event in March when Cyclone
Ingrid hovered off Cairns. I wonder how prepared we are for such an
eventuality?
Of course, climate
change doesn't merely have short-term economic effects.
Consider some of the
medium-term health effects. Research released last month by ACF and the
Australian Medical Association shows that a 'business as usual'
approach to greenhouse pollution could result in the transmission zone
for dengue fever stretching down the east coast as far as Sydney by the
end of this century. In the same period annual heat-related deaths are
expected to rise from 1,100 a year to between 8,000 and 15,000 a year.
That's up to15,000 Australians dying every year as a result of
increased temperatures.
A report from the Water
Services Association of Australia, released last week, assumes a 25%
reduction in water yields from catchments, due to the likely impacts of
climate change. That's a big drop in the drinking water available to
Australia's growing cities.
The Millennium
Assessment Report, released earlier this year by the United Nations,
also contains warnings. The report shows that species loss is
accelerating. The existing pressures of habitat loss, introduced
species and chemical pollution are increasing. They are now being
supplemented by climate change. The report warns that we could lose
between 10 and 30 per cent of all mammal, bird and amphibian species
this century.
These alarming
consequences have driven distinguished scientists like James Lovelock
to conclude that the situation is desperate enough to reconsider our
attitude to nuclear power. I agree with Lovelock about the urgency of
the situation, but not about the response.
The science is very
clear. We need to reduce global greenhouse pollution by about 60 per
cent, ideally by 2050. To achieve that global target, allowing for the
legitimate material expectations of poorer countries, Australia's quota
will need to be at least as strong as the UK goal of 60 per cent by
2050 and preferably stronger. Our eventual goal will probably be to
reduce our greenhouse pollution by 80 or 90 per cent.
How can we reach this
ambitious target?
In terms of energy
supply, we obviously should be moving away from the sources that do
most to change the global climate. Coal-fired electricity is by far the
worst offender, so the top priority should be to replace it with
cleaner forms of electricity. Since there is increasing pressure to
consider nuclear power as part of the mix, I want to spell out why I
don't agree.
The first point is that
the economics of nuclear power just don't stack up. The real cost of
nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from
bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal energy from hot
dry rocks - a resource of huge potential in Australia - also promises
to be less costly than nuclear. In the USA, direct subsidies to nuclear
energy totalled $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further $145
billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar
during the same period amounted to only $5.5 billion. That's wind and
solar together. During the first 15 years of development, nuclear
subsidies amounted to $15.30 per kWh generated. The comparable figure
for wind energy was 46 cents per kWh during its first 15 years of
development.
We are 50 years into
the best funded development of any energy technology, and yet nuclear
energy is still beset with problems. Reactors go over budget by
billions, decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that
power stations are kept operating past their useful life, and there is
still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no economic case
for nuclear power. As energy markets have liberalised around the world,
investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of
reactors in western Europe and the USA peaked about 15 years ago and
has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and
solar energy is increasing rapidly. The actual figures for the rate of
increase in the level of different forms of electricity supply for the
decade up to 2003 are striking: wind nearly 30 per cent, solar more
than 20 per cent, gas 2 per cent, oil and coal 1 per cent, nuclear 0.6
per cent. Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of
alternatives that are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible. This is true
even of countries that already have nuclear power. With billions
already invested in this expensive technology, they have more reason to
look favourably on it than we do.
The second problem is
that nuclear power is far too slow a response to the urgent problem of
climate change. Even if there were political agreement today to build
nuclear power stations, it would be at least 15 years before the first
one could deliver electricity. Some have suggested 25 years would be a
more realistic estimate, particularly considering the levels of public
and political opposition in Australia. We can't afford to wait decades
for a response. Global warming is already imposing heavy social,
environmental and economic costs. By contrast to nuclear, wind turbines
could be delivering power within a year and efficiency can be cutting
pollution tomorrow. These are much more appropriate responses.
The third problem is
that nuclear power is not carbon-free. Significant amounts of fossil
fuel energy are used to mine and process uranium ores, enrich the fuel
and build nuclear power stations. I was working in a UK university when
their electricity industry proposed a crash programme to build 36
nuclear power stations in 15 years to avert the coming energy shortage.
When our research group did the sums, we found that there would have
indeed been an energy shortage if the crash programme had gone ahead -
caused by the huge amounts of energy needed to build the power
stations! In the longer term, over their operating lifetime, the
nuclear power stations would have released less carbon dioxide than
burning coal, but in the short term they would have made the situation
worse.
The same argument holds
true today: building nuclear power stations would actually increase
greenhouse pollution in the short term, and in the long term they put
much more carbon dioxide into the air than renewable energy
technologies like solar and wind power.
The fourth, related,
problem is that high grade uranium ores are comparatively scarce. The
best estimate is that the known high grade ores could supply the
present demand for 40 or 50 years. So if we expanded the nuclear
contribution to global electricity supply from the present level, about
15 per cent, to replace all the coal-fired power stations, the
resources would only last about a decade or so. There are large
deposits of lower grade ores, but these require much more conventional
energy for extraction and processing, producing much more greenhouse
pollution.
Let's not forget,
uranium, like oil, gas and coal, is a finite resource. Renewables are
our only in-finite energy options.
The fifth problem is
that nuclear power is too dangerous. There is the risk of accidents
like Chernobyl. Twenty years after the accident, 350,000 people remain
displaced, three-quarters of a million hectares of productive land
remain off limits, and experts argue about whether the final death toll
will be 4000 or 24,000. One accident like Chernobyl is too many, but
building more reactors increases the risk of another.
Insurers are reluctant
to insure the nuclear industry without government guarantees because of
the risk of such accidents. The very existence of the nuclear industry
is only possible because of significant government subsidies and
intervention to underwrite the risk to insurance companies.
If the world suffers
another Chernobyl, taxpayers, not insurance companies, will foot most
of the bill.
Then there is the
increased risk of nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism.
As Mohamed El Baradei,
Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the 2005 UN
conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
Our fears of a deadly
nuclear detonation...have been re-awakened...driven by new realities.
The rise in terrorism. The discovery of clandestine nuclear programmes.
The emergence of a nuclear black market. But these realities have also
heightened our awareness of vulnerabilities in the NPT regime. The
acquisition by more and more countries of sensitive nuclear know-how
and capabilities. The uneven degree of physical protection of nuclear
materials... The limitations in the IAEA's verification authority...
The ongoing perception of imbalance between the nuclear haves and
have-nots. And the sense of insecurity that persists ...
Despite Mohamed El
Baradei's passionate pleas, for which his agency has just been awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize, the UN conference ended in complete disarray.
The chair was not able even to produce a final statement summarising
the areas of disagreement. Most of the states holding weapons and some
others aspiring to join the nuclear "club" are clearly in breach of the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The existence of weapons or
programmes aimed at their production lends an extra dimension of
instability to the obvious international "hot spots" of the Middle
East, the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan strait.
The growing problem of
terrorism makes the situation even more acute. The willingness of
desperate people to engage in acts of gratuitous violence makes it
imperative to protect the nuclear fuel cycle in military fashion. This
adds both to the economic costs of nuclear power and the social costs
of embracing the technology. Embracing the nuclear fuel cycle would
both increase insecurity and justify further erosion of our shrinking
civil liberties.
Nuclear power also
inevitably produces radioactive waste that will have to be stored
safely for hundreds of thousands of years. After nearly fifty years of
the nuclear power experiment, nobody has yet demonstrated a solution to
this problem.
The Swedes, who have
probably the best system in the world for waste storage, calculate that
the entire exercise to deal with the waste, the temporary storage and
the deep rock laboratory, for all the fuel used by their existing
reactors will cost around $12 billion.
In the absence of a
proven viable solution, expanding the rate of waste production is just
irresponsible. This is not just a huge technical challenge to develop
systems that will isolate high-level waste for over 200,000 years. It
is also a huge challenge to our social institutions. We are talking
about a time scale around a hundred times longer than any human
societies have endured, of the same order of magnitude as our entire
existence as a species.
As AMP Capital
Investors said in their 2004 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Position Paper,
there are significant
concerns about whether an acceptable waste disposal solution exists.
From a sustainability perspective, while the nuclear waste issues
remain unresolved, the uranium/nuclear power industry is transferring
the risks, costs and responsibility to future generations.
There is another point
that should be considered. Nuclear power can only reduce carbon dioxide
released from electricity generation. There are actually five classes
of greenhouse gases, other than CO2, recognised by the Kyoto Protocol
as contributing to global warming. These other gases have significantly
higher global warming potential and last longer in the atmosphere than
CO2. Australian Greenhouse Office figures show that only 35% of
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity production.
Sixty-five per cent of emissions come from transport, landfill,
industrial process emissions, agricultural processes and land clearing.
So all this attention is being devoted to just 35% of the problem.
Transport emissions are ballooning out of control as we spend billions
on roads, bridges and tunnels, we continue to provide massive public
subsidies for road freight and we fail to invest in public transport.
Only yesterday it was reported that governments have agreed to continue
the current massive subsidy of road freight, amounting to many
thousands of dollars per vehicle per year.
I am often urged to
consider the impact of rapid industrialisation in China on the global
problem. "Isn't China building nuclear power stations?", I am asked.
Yes, it is - but it is
also investing massively in renewables, especially wind and solar.
China is planning to get about twice as much energy from wind and solar
as it is from nuclear. More importantly, the Chinese leadership
understands the fundamental principle that a sustainable future
involves real changes. At the recent conference on sustainable
development for China and the world, I heard the leaders expound the
principle of the "three zeroes": zero growth in population, zero growth
in resource use and zero growth in pollution.
Beijing has announced
plans to build a "solar street" where buildings, streetlights, and
other features will run entirely on energy from the sun. Another
project in one of the city's parks will use solar power for lighting,
heating, and refrigeration. These projects reflect a government
commitment to dramatically increase China's use of renewable energy.
The Chinese parliament legislated in February to use renewable energy
resources for 10 per cent of China's energy consumption by 2020. The
new law includes details on the purchase and use of solar cells, solar
water heating, and renewable energy fuels.
China has become a
world leader in solar cell production: Shangde Solar Energy Power
Company, the country's largest producer, has recently expanded to boost
China's total production capacity from 200 to 320 megawatts by the end
of this year.
China is also a world
leader in solar thermal production and use. It accounts for 55 per cent
of global solar heating capacity (excluding pool systems), according to
the US-based Worldwatch Institute. The 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing is
being used to stimulate China's solar energy industry, with plans for
solar power and geothermal energy to be used at various Olympic venues.
And Shanghai has a three-year plan to boost local use of solar energy
to 5 megawatts by 2007.
China's targets for the
growth of renewable energy represent a huge economic opportunity for
Australia. But instead of positioning ourselves as a leader in
renewable energy to supply these new markets, media reports this week
show more interest in allowing China extraordinary access to dirty,
dangerous uranium.
The Chinese leadership
concedes that it will be no small achievement to match its "three
zeroes" goal to the material aspirations of its people, but the
principle contrasts dramatically with the naïve emphasis on
perpetual growth in resource use in our political culture.
Successive reports on
the state of the environment and three reports by the Australian Bureau
of Statistics on measures of progress all show that we are not using
natural resources sustainably. The sensible responses to global warming
are just the sorts of measures that will take us toward a clean, green,
smart and sustainable future. The nuclear option would be a further
decisive step in the wrong direction.
So what should our
strategy be?
How can we reduce our
carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by the middle of this century,
given our dependence on energy for our comfortable lifestyle? There are
now seven fully costed studies showing that nations can reduce their
greenhouse pollution by 30 to 60 per cent by 2050 without building
nuclear power plants and without economic damage.
By far the most
cost-effective way to reduce our emissions is to improve the efficiency
of turning energy into the services that we want: cooking, washing,
lighting, transport and so on. As Amory Lovins put it, people don't
want energy, they want hot showers and cold beer. All forms of new
supply are more expensive than improving the efficiency of turning
energy into services.
Reducing waste is by
far the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse pollution. Did you know that
more than 10 per cent of household electricity in this country is used
keeping appliances like TVs and video players on standby? That is an
extreme example of large amounts of energy not doing anything useful.
Energy efficiency
provides economic benefits because saving energy is much cheaper than
buying it. The Natural Edge Project's recently-published book The
Natural Advantage of Nations outlines numerous case studies. I only
have time to mention a few of these. Du Pont has cut its greenhouse gas
pollution by over 70 per cent in recent years. At the same time it
increased production nearly 30 per cent and saved more than $2 billion
in the process. Five other major firms including IBM, Alcan, Bayer and
British Telecom have reduced their greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent
since the early 1990s - and saved another $2 billion. In 2001, the oil
giant BP announced that it had already met its 2010 target of cutting
greenhouse gases to 10 per cent below its 1990 level. It reduced its
energy bills $650 million over the decade. This May, General Electric
set a goal of improving energy efficiency 30 per cent by 2012. Going
even further, at the extreme end of the range, silicon chip company ST
Microelectronics has set a target of zero net carbon dioxide production
by 2012.
Just last week The
Climate Group, a UK-based, non-profit organisation, published a report,
Carbon Down: Profits Up, showing that 43 companies had significantly
reduced their greenhouse gas emissions and saved a total of $15 billion.
This is just a sample;
literally hundreds of cases show that improving efficiency makes
business sense.
At the household level,
if your fridge or washing machine is more efficient, that is real money
in your pocket as well as a win for the environment. If your house is
better insulated, it costs less to heat in winter and you are less
likely to have to resort to air conditioning to keep the temperature
tolerable in summer. Inefficiency wastes money as well as energy.
We should set the sort
of positive targets for renewable energy that progressive nations in
the northern hemisphere are doing. We should aim at 10 per cent extra
electricity from renewables by 2010, 20 per cent by 2015 and 30 per
cent by 2020. These are realistic targets based on existing technology.
As far back as the early 1990s, the relevant Commonwealth department
estimated we could get 25 per cent of our electricity from renewables
at no significant extra cost, and the technology has advanced
dramatically since then.
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.
Renewables can meet
Australia's energy demands. Just 15 wind farms could supply enough
power for half the homes in NSW. And that would only use less than half
a percent of the pasture land in the state - without disrupting grazing.
Fitting solar panels to
half the houses in Australia could supply seven per cent of all our
electricity needs, including industry's needs, enough for the whole of
Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
And I want to dispel
the myth that when the wind stops or a cloud goes across the sun the
system collapses. The strongest system is a grid that is fed by various
forms of energy. A mix of renewable energies would provide the system
with flexibility. Big centralised coal-powered systems require
expensive back-up in case the largest unit goes down. Diverse sources
of energy make an energy system more reliable. In any case, no one is
suggesting we switch from coal-dependent to being wind and solar
dependent quickly. The solar revolution can't happen overnight! In the
short-term gas will have an important place as we wean ourselves off
our coal dependence.
I would like to see
other States follow the lead of South Australia and outlaw the
installation of new electric water heating in favour of solar, heat
pumps or gas. When an average household switches from electric to solar
water heating, they cut their household emissions by 20 per cent and
save $300 a year. The savings are greater in the northern States. Hot
water often accounts for half of domestic electricity use in
Queensland, where the savings are dramatic. That is why I installed
solar hot water more than twenty years ago. It paid for itself in less
than five years and was still working when I moved, twelve years later.
We should set a target
of at least five per cent for biofuels in the transport sector as well
as requiring cars to be more efficient and investing properly in public
transport. Governments at all levels should be modelling best practice
in buildings, operations and transport.
Above all else, we
should set a long term target to cut our greenhouse pollution by 2050
to well below half the present level and take it seriously. Our present
approach of demanding the world's most generous target and making no
serious effort to cut emissions is an embarrassment to all thinking
Australians.
Let me summarise my
argument. To avoid dangerous further changes to our climate, we need to
act now. We should make a commitment to the sensible alternatives that
produce sustainable cost-effective reductions in greenhouse pollution:
wind power, solar water heating, energy efficiency, gas and energy from
organic matter such as sewage and waste. Nuclear power is expensive,
slow and dangerous, and it won't stop climate change.
Let me finally comment
on uranium mining and export. I suspect the real motive of many who
have called for a debate about nuclear power is to soften up the
Australian people to accept a possible expansion of uranium mining.
This is a modern version of an old debating trick. When we were
debating the Ranger report nearly 30 years ago, then Prime Minister
Malcolm Fraser claimed that "an energy-starved world" needed our
uranium, conjuring up the picture of small children freezing in the
dark if we didn't sell it. This was a transparent attempt to portray a
crass commercial operation as a moral virtue, based on the untrue claim
that the world needed nuclear power.
I wonder how much the
current debate about nuclear power has to do with BHP Billiton's
planned expansion of the Roxby Downs uranium mine in South Australia.
The company has applied to the Commonwealth and South Australian
Governments to take from the Great Artesian Basin five times more water
than it currently does. Plan B is for the company to build a
de-salination plant. That would cost around $160 million more than
taking the extra water from the Great Artesian Basin. Massively
increasing the amount of water extracted from the Great Artesian Basin
could threaten the fragile Mound Springs ecosystem in the desert. The
Big Australian should be warned that it will not get away with making a
big mess in the South Australian outback.
I can't help being
suspicious of the motives of those who claim that they want to see
uranium being exported to slow down global warming. If we were serious
about helping the rest of the world to reduce their greenhouse
pollution, we would start by scaling back our coal exports. That would
have much more impact that exporting more uranium. Of course, those
urging increased uranium exports generally support the continuing
export of more than 100 million tonnes a year of coal, making clear
that their real concern is the economic return from mineral exports
rather than slowing down climate change.
In similar terms, if we
were serious about helping the developing nations to have the energy
services we take for granted, we would be promoting Australian solar
technology, which is both much more appropriate to their needs and much
more likely to provide jobs and economic benefits than expanding
uranium exports. Australia could play a leading role in helping China -
and other countries - make the transition to a clean energy future.
This is not only a chance to offer regional assistance. It's a huge
economic opportunity.
Despite the hype,
uranium only accounts for about one per cent of our mineral exports,
ranking with such metals as tin and tantalum. One per cent!
Since every gram of
uranium becomes radioactive waste and increases the amount of fissile
material that could be diverted to weapons or "dirty bombs", we should
be phasing out the industry, not looking to expand it. Legislation to
phase out nuclear power has been introduced in Sweden (1980), Italy
(1987), Belgium (1999) and Germany (2000), and several other European
countries are discussing it. Austria, the Netherlands and Spain have
enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations.
The concern about bombs
fuelled with radioactive waste is not something being whipped up by
fringe-dwelling extremists. Earlier this month US President George Bush
claimed his security forces had foiled a plot by terrorists to detonate
a "dirty bomb" in the USA. Our Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said
last week the desire of terrorists to get hold of nuclear material
presented a much greater problem than any "rogue state". You won't hear
people worrying about terrorists getting hold of wind turbine parts or
making dirty bombs out of solar panels.
I think the scales are
weighted very heavily against nuclear power as a realistic response to
global warming. It is too expensive, too risky, too slow and makes too
little difference.
The only clean energy
is renewable energy. It is safe, plentiful and lasts forever. It is
better environmentally, economically and socially. It will take us
toward a sustainable future, whereas nuclear energy would be a decisive
step in the wrong direction, producing serious environmental and social
problems for little benefit. As people said back in the 1970s, if
nuclear is the answer it must have been a pretty silly question!
--------------------->
Nuclear power a
dangerous distraction
http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=584
Nuclear power was too
expensive, too dangerous and, with new power stations needing at least
a 15-year lead time, too slow to be seriously considered as an
effective response to the urgent problem of climate change, ACF
President Professor Ian Lowe has told the National Press Club in
Canberra.
Professor Lowe said the
economics of nuclear power just didn't stack up.
"The real cost of
nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from
bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal energy from hot
dry rocks - a resource of huge potential in Australia - also promises
to be less costly than nuclear. In the USA, direct subsidies to nuclear
energy totalled $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further $145
billion in indirect subsidies."
"We are 50 years into
of the best funded development of any energy technology, and yet
nuclear energy is still beset with problems. Reactors go over budget by
billions, decommissioning of plants is so difficult and expensive that
power stations keep operating past their useful life, and there is
still no solution for radioactive waste."
He said contrary to the
nuclear industry's promotional messages nuclear power was not
carbon-free. "Building nuclear power stations would actually increase
greenhouse pollution in the short term, and in the long term they put
more carbon dioxide into the air than renewable energy technologies."
Professor Lowe said in
addition to other serious concerns, nuclear power was far too slow a
response to the urgent problem of climate change.
"Even if there were
political agreement today to build nuclear power stations, it would be
at least 15 years before the first one could deliver electricity. Some
have suggested 25 years would be a more realistic estimate,
particularly considering the levels of public and political opposition
in Australia. We can't afford to wait decades for a response."
And, "since every gram
of uranium becomes radioactive waste and increases the amount of
fissile material that could be diverted to weapons or 'dirty bombs', we
should be phasing out the industry, not looking to expand it."
He said renewables,
like wind and solar power, were a viable alternative electricity source.
"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."
Professor Lowe said
renewable energy did not come with the inherent risks that nuclear
power did. "You don't often hear people worrying about terrorists
getting hold of wind turbine parts of making dirty bombs out of solar
panels," he said.
Instead of flirting
with the dangerous distraction of nuclear power he said Australia
"should set a long term target to cut greenhouse pollution by 2050 to
well below half the present level and take it seriously. Our present
approach of demanding the world's most generous greenhouse emissions
reduction target and making no serious effort to cut emissions is an
embarrassment to all thinking Australians."
He said by promoting
renewable technologies Australia "could play a leading role in helping
China - and other countries - make the transition to a clean energy
future".
--------------------->
NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION
--------------------->
Radiation Dangerous
Even at Lowest Doses
Science, Vol 309, Issue
5732, 233 , 8 July 2005, p. 233.
Jocelyn Kaiser
A new National Research
Council (NRC) report* finds that although the risks of low-dose
radiation are small, there is no safe level. That conclusion has grown
stronger over the past 15 years, says the NRC committee, dismissing the
hypothesis that tiny amounts of radiation are harmless or even
beneficial.
The risk of low-level
radiation has huge economic implications because it affects standards
for protecting nuclear workers and for cleaning up radioactive waste.
The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII (BEIR VII) panel
examined radiation doses at or below 0.1 sieverts (Sv), which is about
twice the yearly limit for workers and 40 times the natural background
amount the average person is exposed to each year. For typical
Americans, 82% of exposure stems from natural sources such as radon gas
seeping from Earth; the rest is humanmade, coming mostly from medical
procedures such as x-rays.
In its last report on
the topic in 1990, a BEIR panel calculated risks by plotting cancer
cases and doses for survivors of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan
in World War II. Risks appeared to increase linearly with the dose.
Based on evidence that even a single "track" of radiation can damage a
cell's DNA, the panel extrapolated this relationship to very low doses
to produce what is known as the linear no-threshold model (LNT).
Some scientists have
challenged this LNT model, however, noting that some epidemiological
and lab studies suggest that a little radiation is harmless and could
even stimulate DNA repair enzymes and other processes that protect
against later insults, an idea known as hormesis (Science, 17 October
2003, p. 378).
But the 712-page BEIR
VII report finds that the LNT model still holds. The panel had the
latest cancer incidence data on the bomb survivors, as well as new dose
information. Committee members also reviewed fresh studies on nuclear
workers and people exposed to medical radiation, all of which supported
the LNT relationship. The model predicts that a single 0.1-Sv dose
would cause cancer in 1 of 100 people over a lifetime. Such risks
should be taken into account, the report cautions, when people consider
full-body computed tomography scans, a recent fad that delivers a
radiation dose of 0.012 Sv.
At the same time, notes
panelist Ethel Gilbert, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer
Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, "we can't really pinpoint" the risk at
the lowest doses.
The BEIR VII panel
examined the latest evidence for a threshold. But it found that
"ecologic" studies suggesting that people in areas with naturally high
background radiation levels do not have elevated rates of disease are
of limited use because they don't include direct measures of radiation
exposures. The panel also concluded that animal and cell studies
suggesting benefits or a threshold for harm are not "compelling,"
although mechanisms for possible "hormetic effects" should be studied
further.
Toxicologist Ed
Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, a vocal
proponent of the hormesis hypothesis, says the panel didn't examine
enough studies. "It would be better if more of the details were laid
out instead of [hormesis] just being summarily dismissed," he says. The
panel's chair, Harvard epidemiologist Richard Monson, acknowledges that
the long-running debate over the LNT model won't end with this report,
noting that "some minds will be changed; others will not."
* Health Risks from
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII
Phase 2
<books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html>
Return
to top
Return
to contents