Nuclear News Australia – Aug 21 -27

August 28, 2015

AUSTRALIA

a-cat-CANAll appears to have gone quiet, on nuclear matters. This is not really the case. Nuclear lobbyists continue to work quietly on the very receptive Australian government, and the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Commission  (RC)  publishes their submissions, except, of course, for those that are “commercially sensitive”.

I’d love to know if the Canadian company SNC Lavalin put one in. They make the CANDU nuclear reactor – the one that the Commission was so interested in when it visited Toronto on July 14th. The same company that’s responsible for Canada’s top position in  World Bank’s most corrupt countries.

To be fair, the RC is also publishing many fine submissions that are written for the public good, as well as all those from vested interests. You can read significant sections of some these at  Submissions to Royal Commission. (I can’t quite keep up with all, at the moment)

On the media front there’s Dr Derek Muller, known for his Youtube shows that confuse and minimise the risks of ionising radiation, with bananas as examples. . The SBS documentary “Uranium – Twisting the Dragon’s Tail” was superbly produced and very entertaining. The first two episodes were terrific. Episode 3 moved into shill territory, and became a sophisticated plug for the nuclear industry.

How badly we need science writers who are motivated by concern for the public good, rather than for the benefit of corporations with deep pockets for employing media!

Lucas Heights (terrorism target) gets security upgrades.  BHP wants to remove Federal and State laws on uranium mining.  Radioactive Waste: Information for communities.

CLIMATE CHANGEAustralia’s bushfire and flood danger, as climate change accelerates. Canning voters are urged to reject Liberals’ war on solar energy.  Citigroup analysis finds that renewable energy IS cheaper than fossil fuel energy. Climate expert Connie Hedegaard in Australia to discuss Paris talks. Uterne 4.1MW solar expansion complete, ready to power Alice Springs.

INTERNATIONAL

CLIMATE.  Mass climate action is needed as world readies for December Paris conference.  Forest fires out of control around Lake Baikal in Siberia. Drought-Fueled Wildfires Burn 7 Million Acres in U.S.

UK‘s Hinkley Point C nuclear station is now officially mothballed. Protest by 3 middle aged women costs nuclear firm €1million.

USA. Leaked review tells of ‘Significant Design Vulnerabilities’ at Hanford radioactive trash site.  Disposal of nuclear waste turning out to be half the cost of reprocessing with MOX fuel.  Escalating costs, expanding timelines, cast doubt on the future of modular nuclear construction.  Lockheed Martin used government nuclear money to lobby for more government nuclear money. St Louis suburb contaminated by radioactive thorium. New measures to promote rooftop solar, by President Obama.

JAPAN.  The Japanese Scientists’ Association joins strong public opinion against nuclear power. Sendai nuclear plant operator set to plug leaks in 5 cooling system pipes. Tepco bid to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant stymied by governor.

Fukushima:

TAIWAN. Taipei prosecutors lose legal case against anti nuclear protestors.

Sophisticated pro nuclear spin – Twisting the Truth on Ionising Radiation

August 27, 2015

Muller, Derek

In Muller’s previous presentations on his YouTube show Veritasium, he has consistently confused the banana-spin
naturally occurring radioactive potassium K, with the nuclear fission produced radioactive isotopes…..Muller seems to have no understanding of the way in which bananas are used in the body

What Muller and Thomas are doing is following the script from the tobacco and asbestos industries.

This documentary “Uranium – twisting the Dragon’s Tail” is just Series One. I would love to know who helped to fund Gene Pool Productions for PBS and SBS to produce this. I’m betting that Series Two will follow before long, with a glossy and positive story about Generation IV nuclear reactors.


The half lie of the Dragon’s Tail
. Online opinion,  By Noel Wauchope  Thursday, 27 August 2015 
The documentary “Uranium – Twisting the Dragon’s Tail” is the latest glossy and highly sophisticated soft sell for the nuclear industry. It’s also, if you look at it closely, rather confusing.

I will start from the end, because that’s where the main message of this film comes out clearly “Just imagine a world where reactors can produce immense amounts of clean, safe, energy. There is no such thing as a future without uranium.” These final words are said against a background of soaring celestial choirs.

This seems to be the formula now, in nuclear promotion. The 2013 propaganda film “Pandora’s Promise” carried the same positive message – an ever rocketing energy demand to be met by ever increasing, indeed limitless, electrical energy provided by new nuclear reactors.

But, like ‘Pandora’s Promise’, this new documentary devotes the first two thirds of its series to discussing the negative aspects of the nuclear industry. Episode One covers its history, ill effects of radiation, the atomic bomb and its use. Episode Two continues this, with a sympathetic attitude to Australian Aboriginal concerns.

Unlike “Pandora’s Promise” this film does not denigrate anti-nuclear activists, and there is no attempt to ridicule Dr Helen Caldicott, as “Pandora’s Promise” did.

Indeed, the first two episodes are beautifully clear and accurate, as well as entertaining. Really, I couldn’t criticise them.

With the final episode – that’s when the message kicks in, and also when it gets confusing…….

Muller consistently mixes up “natural” radiation with ionising radiation from nuclear fission. He talks about background radiation as “natural”. There’s no mention of the increased ionising radiation in the biosphere as a result of the atomic bomb testing in the 1950s and 60s.

In Muller’s previous presentations on his YouTube show Veritasium, he has consistently confused the naturally occurring radioactive potassium K, with the nuclear fission produced radioactive isotopes, such as caesium 137 and strontium 90. As part of this confusion he constantly uses bananas as a comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0.

Cesium-137 is 12 million times more radioactive than potassium-40. Another highly-radioactive fission product, strontium-90, releases almost 20 million times more radiation per unit mass than does potassium-40. Muller seems to have no understanding of the way in which bananas are used in the body. The human species has had thousands of years of experience with bananas and other foods containing potassium 40 (K40). We have a natural trace level of K40 in our bodies. When we eat bananas, our bodies excrete the extra cesium, so by the natural process of homeostasis, our K40 level remains the same. This is not the case with the very recently created radioactive isotopes from nuclear fission; they remain….., there is absolutely no mention of the effects of internal emitters of radiation – that is, the radioactive isotopes breathed in or ingested, that can sit in a body’s organs for years, decades, emitting high dose gamma radiation..

Moving on to the Fukushima nuclear accident, we are told that the psychological effects are the serious ones. What a great piece of spin this is! Of course the psychological effects are extremely serious. Wouldn’t you be worried, if you were a pregnant woman, or if you feared that your child might later get leukaemia, because you decided to return to a radioactive environment? It is the reality of increased risk of fatal illness that accentuates the other disastrous consequences of that accident.

Prof Thomas assures us “The most important studies will be those on the mental effects”. In the context of this documentary, that just makes me envisage more documentaries like this one – with more spin about how we mustn’t worry about ionising radiation…….

The documentary appeared in Australia at a very convenient time for the South Australian Royal Commission. Dr Muller often covers his back with remarks about nuclear weapons “the most savage thing that man has ever built” and like his “feeling that renewables are going so fast – perhaps we can use alternatives”. But ultimately, his is a message of confidence in nuclear power. He says “Every year uranium saves more lives than it has ever destroyed” Really? Where are the facts to back up these kinds of statements? And all is spoken with guru like solemnity, and the backing of soaring holy choral music……..

What Muller and Thomas are doing is following the script from the tobacco and asbestos industries. They know full well that the toll of cancers, heart conditions, birth defects, from persistent exposure to ionising radiation will not become apparent for decades. They would have us believe that it will be impossible to establish ionising radiation as the cause of this toll of suffering and death…….

We are living in a strange time, where science is valued if it brings a benefit to corporations. Dr Derek Muller and Professor Geraldine Thomas are comfortably ensconced in that world. But there must be some scientists out there who are like Sir Richard Doll, and whose work is motivated by the public good.

And we desperately need those scientists.

This documentary “Uranium – Twisting the Dragon’s Tail” is just Series One. I would love to know who helped to fund Gene Pool Productions for PBS and SBS to produce this. I’m betting that Series Two will follow before long, with a glossy and positive story about Generation IV nuclear reactors.  http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17624

Canning Byelection: Abbott’s solar policies could be Liberals’ undoing

August 26, 2015

The solar council is planning a nationwide marginal seats campaign at the next election.

The government has directed the CEFC – which it unsuccessfully tried to abolish – to stop investments in rooftop solar, but changes to the investment mandate remain under legal uncertainty.

ballot-boxSmCanning byelection: solar industry urges voters to reject Liberals ‘war on solar’, Guardian, , 25 Aug 15

Solar Council letterboxes all electors in Western Australia’s seat of Canning encouraging them to vote for Labor, the Greens or the Palmer United party The solar
industry is letterboxing all electors in the crucial West Australian Canning byelection urging them to logo-australian-solar-councvote against the Liberal party on 19 September in response to the Abbott government’s “war on solar”.

The Solar Council leaflet states: “Installing solar helps Western Australians cut a typical power bill by up to 65%. The federal government is targeting solar by slashing the renewable energy target. We will support any political party with a good solar policy.”

  It advocates a vote against the Liberals and for either Labor, the Greens or the Palmer United party.

The council has invited all party leaders and candidates to a public forum on 13 September

Canning Forum

– a week before the byelection that could affect Tony Abbott’s hold on the Liberal leadership – to explain their solar policies.

The byelection was prompted by the death of Liberal MP Don Randall, who held the seat by a healthy margin of almost 12%, but recent polls show a swing of 10% against the Liberals, taking their two-party-preferred lead to a much narrower 51%-49%.

The council’s chief executive, John Grimes, said his organisation was advocating a vote against the Liberals because “it is precisely people like the householders of Canning who will be hurt if the Liberal party is allowed to fully implement their anti-solar agenda”.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

The flyer organised by the Australian Solar Council urging votes for any party except the Liberals on 19 September. Photograph: Australian Solar Council

“This government commissioned the Warburton review which advocated the closure of the small-scale renewable energy target, which supports rooftop solar, and it has tried to ban the Clean Energy Finance Corporation [CEFC] from investing in rooftop solar projects,” Grimes said.

Almost half the houses in Canning have either rooftop solar or solar hot water, according to official figures, and the electorate has the 12th highest solar uptake in the country, according to calculations by the RenewEconomy website.

The deal eventually struck between the government and the Labor opposition left the small-scale solar scheme untouched, but Grimes said the council’s campaign was based on the government’s clear “intentions”.

“If this government were to get its way it would do whatever it took to close the solar industry altogether,” he said……..

The Liberal candidate for Canning is a former SAS officer, Andrew Hastie, up against a local lawyer, Matt Keogh, for Labor. The Greens candidate is small business owner and university lecturer, Vanessa Rauland. The Palmer United party is running the managing director of Palmer’s Mineralogy resources company, Vimal Sharma.

The solar council is planning a nationwide marginal seats campaign at the next election.

The government has directed the CEFC – which it unsuccessfully tried to abolish – to stop investments in rooftop solar, but changes to the investment mandate remain under legal uncertainty. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/25/canning-byelection-solar-industry-urges-voters-to-reject-liberals-war-on-solar

Final episode of SBS Uranium Documentary – PR for the nuclear industry

August 25, 2015

Dennis Matthews, 24 Aug 15 Watched the final episode tonight. The Canadian-Australian physicist comes up with the inevitable physicists conclusion, we need nuclear energy. This program takes the cake for outright sneekiness. After looking at the aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima any normal person would have no alternative but to conclude that nuclear is a non-starter.

Along the way, the physicist-turned-journalist contradicts himself when he acknowledges that in cases of (ionising) radiation it is difficult to make a connection between cause and effect and that (like asbestos) the deaths may come many years after the event, yet a few minutes later he definitively claims that no one was killed by (ionising) radiation at Fukushima. This is straight out of the nuclear industry handbook.

He also interviewed a pro-nuclear medical researcher who was allowed to state unchallenged that low doses of (ionising) radiation MAY be good for you and that the human species has adapted to background ionising radiation. Given that we have, at the moment, no way of distinguishing many cancers and birth defects caused by ionising radiation from those caused by other agents (e.g., chemical) then these are outrageous statements and do no credit either to the medical researcher or to the scientific credentials of the journalist.

All-in-all a fairly crude attempt to sway public opinion. Given its timing I would have to conclude that this is another piece of pro-nuclear propaganda timed for the Scarce debacle.

Dennis Matthews

Remove National and State Environmental law on uranium mining, says BHP’s Submission to Royal Commission

August 24, 2015


BHP-on-Aust-govtBHP cool on hot uranium demand,  The Weekend Australian p.2 REBECCA PUDDY,      22 Aug 2015 
BHP Billiton has warned that the future doubling of global demand for uranium will not necessarily lead to increased investment at its Olympic Dam mine.

The mining company said the commercial return from the Olympic Dam deposit in the north of South Australia was driven primarily by copper production, together with a combination of commodity prices and other market factors.

“Therefore increased demand for uranium may not in and of itself lead to increased investment in the Olympic Dam deposit,” the company said in its submission to South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

BHP Billiton’s warning comes after it announced this month that 380 workers would be sacked as part of an operational review to cut costs.

An expansion plan for Olympic Dam was put on hold three years ago, although South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill hinted this month that a modified plan to expand the mine remains on the cards, with trials of an alternative heap-leaching technology progressing more rapidly and successfully than expected. This comes as demand for uranium is tipped to increase.

The International Energy Agency world energy outlook states that there are currently 437 operating nuclear power reactors in the world with 378 gigawatt capacity.

With a further 68 reactors being built, the agency forecasts nuclear capacity will increase to 624GW by 2040. “In the long run, additional supply of primary uranium will be required to meet the expected demand,” it says.

“With steady demand increases, the market deficit is expected to be filled by a range of potential projects.”

BHP Billiton’s submission to the royal commission focuses its attentions on the regulatory burdens placed on it by state and federal governments. It recommends the removal of uranium mining from the list of Matters of Environmental Significance in the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.

 

This week’s nuclear and climate news

August 21, 2015

a-cat-CANSOUTH AUSTRALIA. Let’s not forget that the purpose of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission is to have South Australia become the world’s nuclear toilet. For that reason, the most important submissions are those concerning Issues Paper 4 – Management, Storage and Disposal of Wastes.

Many submissions newly  published. I’m not able to keep up. I single out an outstanding, powerful submission from Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle.   A top Submission on Nuclear Waste Importing for South Australia comes from NGOPPON TOGETHER INCAnd there’s Claire Catt’s fine Submission.

South Australian government warned on the illegality of using public money to encourage nuclear industry.

Ambivalence in Port Adelaide Enfield Council about trucking radioactive trash. Nuclear stooge MP Rowan Ramseytouting radioactive trash dump for his electorate.

FEDERAL POLITICS.  Family First  (!!) Senator Bob Day not able to dismantle Australia’s law against establishing nuclear facilities . He tried. Abbott’s plan to change environmental law puts Great Barrier Reef at risk.  Farm organisations angry at Abbott plan to restrict legal action against resource projects. Very little use made of “third-party appeal rights” in Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

ABORIGINAL ISSUES. A beautiful article by Jeff McMullen on Aboriginal custodianship of Australia

RENEWABLE ENERGY . Huge solar panel array for Canberra Hospital’s roof.  Sunshine Coast solar farm to start building before Christmas. Australian.  Victorian government to back new wind farms as part of renewables plan Electric Vehicle Association launched in Tasmania.

 

INTERNATIONAL

WORLD.   Ionising radiation:

Iran nuclear agreement is endorsed by Nuclear Nonproliferation Experts. Over 300 US rabbis urge Congress to support Iran nuclear deal. Obama can still do the Iran nuclear deal, despite Congress opposition. Iran has compliedon key condition of the nuclear deal – submitting documents to IAEA.

CLIMATE CHANGE. Islamic leaders call on the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims to embrace climate change action. Dangerous Heat Sets Sights on Southern United States.

CHINA. Tianjin explosion highlights need to prioritise environment over economic growth. China censors Internet on Tianjin explosion news. France worried that China’s hasty nuclear power programme is unsafe.

JAPAN. Japanese environment groups protest against Restart of Sendai Nuclear Power.  Volcano alert issued just miles from newly reopened nuclear reactor.  Japan nuclear utility says no special precautions over volcano.  Utilities spent ¥1.4 trillion last year to maintain idled reactors. Japan’s Plutonium Problem.

FukushimaExtra high radiation level in atmosphere above Melted slag storage facility of Fukushima sewage plant. Fukushima operator’s mounting legal woesEarthquake M5.0 offshore of Fukushima prefecture.

USA.  Momentum growing in campaign to shut down Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant. Questions on safety, and silencing of critics – HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT.  America feared that Israel would deploy nuclear weapons.

UKBristol Nuclear Protestors Fined...instead…shouldn’t they be awarded Medals?!

CANADA ‘s radioactive trash dump plan, all too close to USA border.  Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission called upon to disclose study on nuclear disaster.

SOUTH AFRICA. African National Congress calls for transparency on nuclear tender process.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. Tax-payer money going to nuclear related companies in UAE.

NORTH KOREA. Concern over North Korea’s uranium enrichment.

NORWAY‘s dangerous plan to dump nuclear trash on island

Don’t confuse return of Lucas Heights nuclear wastes with import of foreign wastes

August 21, 2015

radioactive trashWe may now expect Fed govt to await the bi-election in Canning in Perth on Sept 17th before announcing the national nuclear dump site short list across SA & WA – just as South Australian  Premier awaited his bi-elections before announcing the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission

In any case, the national store & repository are required by law under National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 as a national dump to be restricted to take waste ‘of domestic origin’.

And so has to be at a different site to proposed International nuclear dump being pushed in South Australia.

Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle says NO to South Australia as a Nuclear State

August 21, 2015

logo Sisters of St Joseph

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINJosephite SA Reconciliation Circle
Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

SUBMISSION TO ISSUES PAPERS 1 – 4

The Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle is a group of concerned citizens with a deep and
abiding interest in the health and well-being of Aboriginal peoples who have already been particularly impacted by the nuclear industry in Australia. We have seen great suffering in Aboriginal communities in the name of progress. The very fact that State funds are being invested in this Royal Commission is deeply disturbing.
We see investment in the nuclear cycle is a backward step and are alarmed by the prospect of
any form of nuclear proliferation. Like many in our community we are shocked that the South
Australian Government could consider going down the path under consideration by the Royal
Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. We want to continue to be proud to be South
Australian, not ashamed. We do not want South Australia to become ‘The Nuke State’.
There is a need for continued social and economic development of South Australia. We
welcome positive change and development and are excited by the potential energy
opportunities for our State. Most recently, we have been buoyed by reports that renewables
expert Dr. Mark Diesendorf from the University of NSW has completed a report showing that
South Australia could be run on 100% renewable energy is just 15 years! There is a way
forward.
We offer the following responses to questions posed in the Issues Papers………

No justification for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia – Sisters of St Joseph

August 21, 2015

Why would any reasonable society actually WANT to expose themselves to danger and the
greatest known risk to human kind and for a completely incomprehensible time of at least
100,000 years till the danger of contamination of earth, waters and human beings subsides!!!
For money? For jobs?
What substitute is money and jobs for some at the cost of clean air, uncontaminated water,
uncontaminated land for food growing, a safe environment to bring up children, a healthy
environment to bring up children, a clean environment for every generation?
What extraordinary motivation is driving those who want to risk all this to involve South
Australia our homeland further into the contamination from which there will be no return?

logo Sisters of St Joseph


scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINJosephite SA Reconciliation Circle

Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
SUBMISSION TO ISSUES PAPER 4 “…Regarding the storage of high level (or nuclear long lived) waste, the Royal Commission must
• accept and
• make perfectly clear to the citizens of South Australia
that there are simply NO World’s Best practice for the storage of high level (or nuclear long lived) waste.
The material is simply too dangerous, will live on dangerously for an outrageous 200,000
years (CCSA 2015) – and despite the fervent hopes ofthe nuclear industryIlobby- there are
no technological solutions to its safe storage – now or likely to be in the foreseeable future
and quite possibly never.

Unfortunately there is no safeguard in the assurances of those who claim that the situation is
safe and weapons proliferation won’t happen ‘because we say it won’t ‘.

As long term South Australian citizens our members are well placed to know that –
in the Ernul Maralinga nuclear explosions and the later even more damaging so called ‘minor
trials’ which contained plutonium there were ready assurances given by those whose vested
interests were served by the nuclear explosions going ahead. (as quoted in 1.8. above)

The effects of the Emu and Maralinga fallouts affected many South Australians particularly
those living in the remote Far West and North West of our state and in the areas around
Coober Pedy. Many were Aboriginal and their life style of ground cooking and other factors
placed them in an extremely vulnerable position. This experience – personal in most cases
and to their families in others – is what galvanised the Senior Women Elders of Coober Pedy,
known as the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta (KPKT) to lead what became the national successful
campaign of 1998-2004 against the Federal Government’s imposition of a national radioactive
dump on their land.

All of us were living when the Government used the country for the bomb…Some were living at
Twelve Mile, just out ofCoober Pedy… Whitefellas and all got sick. When we wereyoung, no
women got breast cancer or any other kind ofcancer. Cancer was unheard of with me either and
no asthma. We were people without sickness.
The Government thought they knew what they were doing then. Now again they are coming
along and telling us poor blackfellas, ‘Oh, there’s nothing that’s going to happen, nothing is going
to killyou.’And that will still happen like that bomb over there. KPKTApril 1998
In 1998 information was leaked about the Pangea consortium’s plan to ride in on the coattails
ofthe Federal Government’s plan to impose the national radio-active dump on what they saw
as the politically weak state of South Australia. At the time throughout SA andWAat least, at
this proposed imposition, there was an absolute uproar that reverberated overseas. For their
part the KPKT published the following: A dump for the whole world – They must really want to
kill us!

They really are aiming to wipe the country out, not just us but all living things in the whole
earth. They might as well come and kill us straight out Kill us like a dog in the days oflong ago
instead ofthis sneaky way ofkilling us. Kill us straight out…. (Dec 1998)
Sixteen years later, with the introduction of a Royal Commission by our own State
government seeking a respectable way of bringing up the same proposal, our )osephite SA
Reconciliation Circle including our Aboriginal members, asks with something of the same kind
of amazement WHY?
That’s the one question that springs to mind. WHY?
Why would any reasonable society actually WANT to expose themselves to danger and the
greatest known risk to human kind and for a completely incomprehensible time of at least
100,000 years till the danger of contamination of earth, waters and human beings subsides!!!
For money? For jobs?
What substitute is money and jobs for some at the cost of clean air, uncontaminated water,
uncontaminated land for food growing, a safe environment to bring up children, a healthy
environment to bring up children, a clean environment for every generation?
What extraordinary motivation is driving those who want to risk all this to involve South
Australia our homeland further into the contamination from which there will be no return?
Ifthe movers of this plan and their government colleagues think that South Australia is a poor
state now, what currency will SA have when known as the radioactive state – the depository
for the world’s nuclear waste?

South Australia nuclear toiletFarewell to the tourism industry, to the wine industry, to the food industry.
What reasonable traveller will want to expose themselves and their families to travel along
roads or train tracks when there is real risk of meeting with trucks or trains travelling 100s of
kilometres to reach a radioactive dump for the world’s waste including high level waste.
What responsibility are the protagonists to bear when a nation jstate with comparatively
clean breathable air, lands and waters is forced by the few who will make a huge profit from
the dispossession of the rights ofthe many to safety and to live in a healthy environment?
There was immediate opposition to the proposal for SA becoming the site for the national
radioactive waste dump when proposed in 1998. When Pangea Resources then appeared on
the scene to raise the stakes to Australia becoming a site for the world’s radio-active waste,
ordinary citizens were outraged at this incredulous scheme. So much so that the WA State
Government refused to allow the company to remain in its state.
86% of South Australians were opposed to our state becoming the dumping ground for the
nation’s radioactive waste. Why should we have to accept what was transparently a political
decision to burden what was seen a politically weak state of the nation?

Bob Day’s pro nuclear amendment fails in the Senate

August 19, 2015
Senator Day didn’t have enough support for the amendment to pass- Greens and ALP voted against it- so the Bill passed unamended. Some great contributions and statements from Senator Scott Ludlam, usually these are posted on his website.

the ARPANS Act 1998 – 1A Section 10 includes :

10 Prohibition on certain nuclear installations

(1) Nothing in this Act is to be taken to authorise the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations:

(a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant;

(c) an enrichment plant;

(d) a reprocessing facility.

(2) The CEO must not issue a licence under section 32 in respect of any of the facilities mentioned in subsection (1).

(2) Clause 12, page 8 (lines 14 to 22), omit the definition of nuclear installation, substitute: nuclear installation means any of the following:

(a) a nuclear reactor for research or production of nuclear materials for industrial or medical use (including critical and sub-critical assemblies);

(b) a plant for preparing or storing fuel for use in a nuclear reactor as described in paragraph (a);

(c) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section;

(d) a facility for production of radioisotopes with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 695 other followers