Nuclear Creep: Howard’s nuclearisation of Australia : Melbourne Indymedia

Nuclear Creep: Howard’s nuclearisation of Australia and the frauduent claims to sustainability

cont' from above:

What is sustainability?

The much quoted Brundtland Report (1987) defines sustainability as: "Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." For my purposes, sustainability needs to meet Brundtland’s criterion through the five fingers of sustainabilitiy: environmental, economic, political, social and technological. The nuclear power industry fails them all.

Can nucear power be sustainable?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear regulator, produce a leaflet Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development where they outline the arguments that are now familiar as those being voiced by the Federal government. That publication continues the now familiar myth that nuclear power can be environmentally beneficial.

While it is true that the actual power-generating part of the process produces no carbon dioxide emissions, the supply and disposal chain for that power is not.
Nuclear power is not produced in a vacuum. It requires an extensive infrastructure including the mining industry, uranium enrichment industry, transport industry, security industry and a disposal process for the waste. All requiring the use of fossil fuel powered vechiles, or else the provision of new infrastructure if electric vehicles or trains were used, all putting a substatial dent in both the environmental and economic sense of nuclear power.

What really sinks the nuclear boat on environmental sustainability is the fact that at least 60% of the world’s CO2 emissions are not generated by power stations. Add to that the risks inherent in the waste disposal, and all you have done is heap another environmental disaster upon future generations.

The mining of uranium to provision a nuclear power industry is itself fraught with environmental problems. Currently the Roxby Downs uraium mine in South Australia takes enourmous amounts of water out of the environment and contaminates it.

Economically, nuclear power has never made sense. Even though Australia has the world’s largest deposits of uranium, turning it into power will require huge subsidies. The US nuclear industry would not exist without them. In addition, experts estimate that our high grade uranium deposits will only last 40 years. Low grade ore will inevitably have to be used: which creates more pollution (CO2 and CFCs to process), and cost more. The short term gains we might make in mining and selling our uranium will soon dry out, leaving us with a huge mess of waste dissappated across the tailings dams, defunct power plants and waste dumps it leaves behind. A mess that needs to be monitored and guarded for hundreds of years at enormous cost to future generations.

Politically, the nuke option might win us some brownie points with the U.S. Federal Minister for Science, Brendan Nelson, says Australia will start using nuclear power within the next 50 years. However, governments decisions lead to changes in voting patterns and in recent years the Greens are making considerable ground, possibly because of the current government’s lack of environmental vision.

Pouring money into a venture like nuclear power is bound to require decreased spending in other areas. The social costs of depriving health, education and social services of more funds on top of the decreased funding already experienced under ten years of a Howard government, can only be detrimental to the security of Australian society. That old furphy from the fifties, “Power too cheap to meter” has made a come-back in some pro-nuclear quarters, despite facts to the contrary. In 2004 the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Civil Engineers (RAE):

"put out a paper on electricity prices suggesting that new nuclear plants could produce power far more cheaply than even coal…But, tellingly, the RAE has also told the government that it must create a market for nuclear by ensuring the "long-term stability of electricity prices". This is shorthand for the nuclear industry's real agenda: a new system of subsidies to ensure it is never again exposed to the chill winds of a free market. The industry even has a name for it: the Security of Supply Obligation. (Leake & Box 2005)."

Decommissiong nuclear power plants (NPPs), which have an average life of about 40 years, is an expensive business too. The UK is currently decomissiong plants built in the 60s and 70s – estimated at 56 billion pounds and taking as long as 125 years. To exacerbate this problem, the only ‘in perpetuity’ storage site in the UK is in danger of flood from climate change in the next 500 years (BBC 2005).

If you’re still not convinced that nuclear power is a bad idea, take heed of the words of Mark Lesinski, an engineer given the unenviable job of securing the site of the closed Hinkley A nuclear power station, in Somerset, England. Hinkley A, like hundreds of NPPs due for decommissioning worldwide, is expected to remain a dangerous site for millions of years. Long after you and I, and our children and our children’s children’s children, are dead. He says “I'll probably have to go and put a message to future generations inside one of the reactor buildings before we seal them up." He hasn’t thought about what that sign might say to generations yet to come, but one of his collegues has: "If you've got a problem, don't phone me." (Meek 2005)

Placement of nuclear facilities will always be an issue. No one in their right minds wants to live near a nuclear power plant, reactor, waste dump or on the transport route of such dangerous materials. You can bet the nuclear transport route won’t be passing Kirribilli House. There are already indications of cancer clusters in areas surrounding nuclear power plants in the UK

When the Howard government points to the ‘few’ nuclear accidents that have occurred they are only referrnig to the big disasters like Chernobyl in 1986 that has killed thousands in Europe (notwithstanding the IAEA’s 2005 report that only 50 were killed, not taking into account the fallout). Accidents increase the cost of plants, with Chernobyl being estimated to have cost US$358b – greater than the value of al the nuclear power generated in the Soviet Uniion.

The pro-nukers are ignoring the many small leaks, lost nuclear material, and accidents that occur almost daily in the world’s 440 nuclear power plants and other facilities. All potential killers, some actual killers.

--------------------------------------------------------
FACT BOX: Nuclear Accidents Big and Small
-------------------------------------------------------

*1957 core fire, Windscale NPP, (UK) releases radioactiviity into environment
*1979 Partial core meltdown, Three Mile Island NPP, Pennsylvania, US. (Before this accident, the US federal government performed strontium-90 testing of milk from cows in the areas around nuclear facilities which indicated increased strontium-90, when compared with milk from areas without nuclear facilities. Testing was abruptly stopped after the TMI accident, with no explanation.)
*1986 Chernobyl NPP explodes killing 45 immediately, killing an estimated 35,000 with fallout and displacing half a million people. Low level radiation has caused increased non-fatal illness including immune system diseases. Almost every child in Belarus suffers this (Greenpeace Ukraine)
*1997 Tokaimura NPP (Japan) fire exposes 37 workers to radiation
*1999 90 tonnes of radioactive water leaks at Japanese NPP
*2003 Bradwell NPP (UK) closed as economically unviable, amid claims by researchers of increased cancers in area linked to leaks. Cancer research also stopped at that time.
*2003 Independent research indicates decreased infant deaths after closure of US NPPs (Mangano 2003)
*2004 discovery that water leaking from pipelines and blowing off open-air ponds of nuclear waste at Hunterston NPP (UK) has been contaminating surrounding soil
*2004 4 workers die at Mihama NPP (Japan) when colling pie explodes
*2005, April. Leak discovered Sellafield NPP (UK)
*2005, 10 August. One year old Khmelnitsky NPP reactor shutdown for seventh time when turbines failed
*2005, 11 August. Tokai NPP reactor shut down when water leaks
*2005, 30 September. Mihama NPP (Japan) leaks radioactive coolant
*Almost every one of the 120 NPP in the US has experienced a small accident or leak of some kind.
*For a full list of nuclear mishaps see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents and http://www.nuclearfiles.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All uranium mines, and potentially any nuclear power plants or dumps, will be sited on indigenous lands. Kevin Buzzacott, distinguished Arabunna elder whose land in South Australia was in recent years the subject of a nucelar waste dump proposal says: "Our land was taken by massacre and displacement. No treaties were even signed. We have never ceded out sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law we still own the land and will always oppose the radioactive waste dump." (in Green: 1999)

In recent months a proposal to site a nuclear waste dump near Katherine and now Alice Springs in the NT was roundly rejected by the community there. The federal government has not yet met with indignous leaders despite invitations to do so. The feds have already made up their minds: they will, as they have in the past, override state or territory government decsions on uranium mines and waste dumps.

Technologically, there is not yet and may never be a failsafe way to store nuclear waste. Even if such a utopia were to exist, safe transport to that disposal site is still an issue. In the UK, there has been insecure storage of waste from power stations in urban communities for over 30 years, with no solution in sight. We hear claims that the technology to secure waste has improved, but where is it being used? Even the biggest nuclear waste facility in Yucca, US is prone to accidents including earthquakes.

----------------------------------------------------------------
FACT BOX: “Orphaned Sources” are nuclear material that is lost, misplaced, thrown in the rubbish, or stolen from the world’s nuclear facilities. The US has 1,500 orpahned sources since 1996, Europe loses about 70 nuclear sources per year, a European commission estimate about 30,000 nuclear sources are at risk of becomign orphaned in Europe due to insecure storage and bad bookkeeping. These sites include radiotherapy units and irradiation facilities. There are no estimates on orphaned sources for the former USSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Other nuke dangers to sustainability: mines, war, waste and food:

The extent of our governments commitment to all things nuclear is evident in the other pro-nuclear activities it engages in.

I have already touched on some of the problems with uranium mining for the environment. However, uranium maining is inextricably linked to war. The Federal governments uranium mining policy claims to control sale of Australian uranium only for peaceful purposes. Professor Jim Green, long time anti-nuke activist, spells out the lie of peaceful uses for nuclear technology:

"The “peaceful” nuclear power and research sectors have produced enough fissile material to build over 110,000 nuclear weapons. Australian uranium has resulted in the production of more than 60 tonnes of plutonium, sufficient to produce about 6000 nuclear weapons.

Supposedly “peaceful” nuclear facilities can be — and have been — used in various ways for weapons research and production. Of the 60 countries which have built nuclear power or research reactors, about 25 are known to have used their “peaceful” nuclear facilities for covert weapons research and/or production — a strike rate of about 40%.

Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea have succeeded in producing nuclear weapons under cover of a “peaceful” nuclear program." (Green 2005)

In any case, we should question our governments commitment to peaceful uses of nuclear material. In June 2005 the Australian Department of Defence engaged in joint minitary training with the US at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland. The US is training Aussie troops in the use of their weapons systems, including nuclear powered vessels and weapons that utilise depleted uranium shells. Minster for Defence, Robert Hill, stated that the goal of TS05 is increased ‘inter-operability’ with U.S. forces: inevitably this will include training in using nuclear weapons. State and Federal governments have committed to further joint excercises with the US, the next being Talisman Sabre 2007.

Just as Howard seeks to override state industrial relation policies, the Northern Territory government was recently told that their decision to ban further uranium mining is no longer their decision. Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane declared: “The Northern Territory is open for business on uranium mining.” The mining industry must have been anticipating this, with several mining companies never ceasing their uranium exploration in the NT during this time. And today both major parties are warming to former PM Bob Hawke’s suggestion that Australia become the nuclear waste dump for the world.

The slow infiltration of nuclear into our lives has extended to food. Two years ago the Federal government permitted the use of nuclear material for the sterilisation of fresh tropical fruits, following the US trend towards an increasing range of foodstuffs being irradated in lieu of good manufacturing hygene practices. Today tropical fruits and herbal teas may be irradiated in Australia, while almost anything goes in the US including meat and school lunches. Irradiation is aproduct of the Atoms for Peace program, continueing the lie that nuclear can ever be peaceful or safe. Irradiated food has less vitamins and contains hitherto unknown radiolytic products, the saftey of which have not been tested.

Where to now?

These goings on may be making some of you nervous. You may be asking just how soon will we be expecting to see nuclear power plants and truckloads of waste barrelling down our highways? Sooner than you may think.

Opposition to these various uses of nuclear materials encompasses the gambits of the peace, environment, indigenous, democratic and health interests of various progresive movements throughout Australia. Just as no one action (like changing to nculear power) is a solve-all for climate change, the nuclear steamroller needs every one of us to act on it. What we can’t do alone we can do together!

Written by
Kim Stewart. BA, BSc (hons A)
Peace Convergence Collective
Foe Brisbane Climate Justice Collective
Food Irradiation Watch

Get involved in your local anti-nuke group:
* Peace Convergence (Brisbane) http://www.geocities.com/peaceconvergence
* Food Irradiation Watch (Brisbane) http://www.foodirradiationinfo.org
* Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition (Sydney) http://www.anti-bases.org/
* Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) http://www.mapw.org
* The Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia (Perth) http://www.anawa.org.au/
* Friends of the Earth Australia Anti-Nuclear Campaign (Melbourne) http://www.foe.org.au/nc/index.htm#nuke
* No Radioactive Waste Dump Committee (Darwin) http://www.ecnt.org/html/cur_other_toxics_nukedump.html

PLEASE ADD YOUR GROUPS! :)

--------------
References
--------------
ABC Online. 2005. “Hawke's nuclear waste idea has merit: Nelson” September 29, 2005. Online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1471422.htm

Australian Conservation Foundation 2005. “Nuclear Energy: No solution to climate change” http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=489

Australian Government. Dept Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2005. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. Nuclear Exports and Safeguards: Australia's Uranium Exports Policy” http://www.dfat.gov.au/security/aus_uran_exp_policy.html

Australian Government. 2005. “Research Note no. 32 2004–05: Australia’s uranium after Kyoto” by Greg Baker, Statistics Section, 14 February 2005 http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn32.htm

BBC News. 2005. “Nuclear Cleanup to Cost £56b” August 11, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm

Caldicott, H. 2005 “Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution” April 13, 2005 The Australian. Online at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C12835747%5E12332%2C00.html

Diesendorf, M 2005. “Can nuclear energy reduce CO2 emissions?” Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales. Online at http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/CT_nukes_CO2.pdf

Green, J. 1999. “Radioactive Racism” Online at http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/racism.html

Green, J. 2005. “Global warming: Nuclear power no solution” in Green Left Weekly, April 13. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/622/622p9.htm
International Atomic Energy Agency 2002. Inadequate Control of World's Radioactive Sources” IAEA Press Release September 2, 2002. Online at http://hps.org/documents/iaeapressrelease.pdf

Leake, J and Box, D. 2005. “When PR goes nuclear” in Australian Financial Review, May 30, 2005. Online at http://afr.com/articles/2005/05/26/1116950813750.html

Mangano, J. 2003. “Decrease in Infant Death Rates After Reactor Closings” at Radiation and Public Health Project. Online at http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/reactorclosings.html

Meek, J. 2005. “Back to the future” in The Guardian, October 4, 2005.
Online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1584356,00.html

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 2005. “Timeline fo the Nuclear Age: 2005” Online at http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/2000/2005.htm

Sydney Morning Herald, August 4, 2005. “Government takes over NT's uranium”
http://smh.com.au/news/national/government-takes-over-nts-uranium/2005/08/04/1123125844186.html?oneclick=true

Sydney Morning Herald, August 10, 2005 “Nuclear Power only natural, says Nelson”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nuclear-power-only-natural-says-nelson/2005/08/10/1123353388398.html

World Nuclear Association. 2005. “Australia's Uranium and Who Buys It”, August.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf48.htm