SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA

Alas, I fear that one of my idols has sold out.

7:16 PM, Fri 29 Aug 2008 .. Posted in Anti Nuclear Sentiments .. 0 comments .. Link

To Mr Peter Garrett, Environment Minister.

On stage in the 80's you won my heart by singing about things that were really important in a time of affluence and ignorance. In the news and the media you reaffirmed those sentiments by speaking out loudly and strongly. My heart swelled with pride and respect as I heard you speak out for those around you... those who were being mistreated... those who couldn't speak so loudly for themselves.

In the time since, I have drawn courage and strength from the wisdom and environmental concern I heard both in your lyrics and your own private words. When you spoke out against those who benefit whilst others are suffering, I felt that I was standing next to you. When you protested war and the use of uranium I felt like I was storming the lines with you. When you drew attention to the stupidity of using coal or trying to harness nuclear power when there are so many other viable avenues to follow, I was cheering from the sidelines. Without even knowing me, you have helped to forge the person that I have ultimately become. You passed on that same wisdom... the quest for fairness... the urge to question... the desire to speak loudly... a love for our environment... and a deep loathing for anything nuclear.

When I heard that you were becoming a politician, I rejoiced. I even remember saying something along the lines of 'This is a man that I will be happy to vote into the office of PM'. When I heard that you had joined the labour party I was a little confused. On considering our political history, and the fact that we Aussies can't seem to get it through our heads that ours is not just a two horse race, I decided that you had simply chosen the lesser evil. I chose to believe that you had not sold out as so many others around me were suggesting you had. When your government was voted in (on the back of the anti-nuclear vote, I might point out) and you were confirmed as Environment Minister I breathed a sigh of relief, believing that our part of the Earth was in good hands.

In the meantime I have quietly watched and waited, hoping to hear that your values were finally going to resurface and become something that Australia could be proud of. When time went by and I heard very little of your thoughts, my smile slipped a little. With more time, the doubts crept slowly into my mind.

Today you broke my heart.

I can't believe that you are allowing an expansion of the Beverley Uranium mine in South Australia. I cannot believe that I would ever hear these words come from your mouth...
"Advice is clear to me that in terms of storing this material, whether you store it above ground, whether you store it in drums, or whether you do re-inject it into a saline aquifer, the last option of re-injecting it into the saline aquifer is considered by all the scientific advice that came to me to be the best, most effective, most environmentally safe way of dealing with the waste,"

Bullshit, Peter! And the worst thing is that as an anti-nuclear protester since the late 70's, you know it. There is NO environmentally safe way to deal with the waste, and suggesting that it is 'more environmentally safe' way is, in essence, political bullshit... ie, lying. You must have excelled in your political mumbo-jumbo classes.

~~Yours sincerely~~
Regards,
Tina Cee.

This is a link to the ABC story for the 29th of August 2008, where we first read the news. Gryphonn made several comments and replies but I was too slow to have my own say... but then, I publish a blog for that very thing. Unfortunately, his last reply was pretty lengthy and didn't make it into the discussion. However, he has made some excellent points and I wanted to give you his view as well. Please feel free to trawl through the 86 comments on the ABC page as it contains some good indicators (both pro and con) of what Australians think on the subject. But for those who don't feel like reading that much I've copied and pasted Gryph's participation in the debate, as well as the replies to his comments below in red. The final blue paragraph is the comment that didn't make it onto the page.

Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 12:26:22pm

"You rode the backs of the environmentalists to get a seat in parliament, then you stabbed the same people in the back and jumped on the coat-tails of big business.

Shame on you Peter Garrett. Personally, if I had compromised my beliefs the way you have yours, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I think I'll recycle all my Midnight Oil albums now.

You really make me sick Peter. Words cannot describe the shame I feel for supporting you."

MO: 29 Aug 2008 12:59:51pm

"I respect Peter Garrett. Here is a man who decided that to really make a difference he needed to be inside, not outside throwing rocks like most bloggers.

Obviously it is not easy when the narrow agenda gets broadened and decisions need to be taken when all the facts and agendas are taken into account.

Tough Gig Peter, but at least you are having a go at creating the changes you want, even if I don't necessarily agree with the narrow agenda. Maybe your time will come as the environment and the parties adjust.

This is the reality. Narrow agendas cannot be followed as the good of all must be considered."

Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 1:10:41pm

'The good of all'.
"Does that mean that long term environmental damage caused by storage of waste from uranium mining is for 'the good of all'?

So many people are claiming that uranium mining is a safe practice, when we know that it is a dangerous practice and the end product (nuclear waste from reactors) cannot be stored safely for future generations.

Why do people look at today instead of the future of this planet? I'm yet to hear anything from the environment minister promoting wind/solar/hotrock/solarthermal, or other energy sources.
'The good of all' should encompass present and future don't you think?"

MO: 29 Aug 2008 1:35:11pm

"G, I suppose you also oppose the radio active waste storage facility mooted for NT or SA. ?

Much better to have it stored in our warehouses and basements in the cities!

Garret is practicing pragmatism - look it up."

Gryphonn: 29 Aug 2008 2:17:50pm

"Well MO, I oppose uranium mining and enrichment. Strange that. But I guess I'm just another damned greenie. One of those damned greenies that was spouting some rot about 'global warming' and 'greenhouse effects' in the eighties.

I would have thought that it would be obvious to everyone that we cannot afford to continue promoting uranium mining and uranium based energy production as economically viable practices. In the long term, we will all pay the environmental price.

I guess you consider it OK to dump radioactive waste so long as it isn't anywhere near where you live MO?
It was OK to bury chemical waste in the bush 50 odd years ago. Then cities expanded and houses were built on long forgotten dumps, and suddenly toxic waste began to surface, forcing the abandonment of entire suburbs.

Will it be OK in a hundred years when radioactive waste leaches into the Great Artesian Basin?

Have you thought that if Rudd, Garrett et al started spending money on serious research projects for renewable energy resources instead of putting money in large corporate pockets with uranium interests, we wouldn't have to have this discussion?"

ravensclaw: 29 Aug 2008 1:19:43pm

"It continues to amaze me that some people still cannot apply some critical thinking to be able to tell the difference between -

Nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, nuclear power and other uses of radioactive materials eg aviation.

We have a nuclear power station, we use radioactive material for cancer treatments and the aviation industry every day. We even transport radioactive materials around the country every day.

Do we have a Nuclear Bomb? No

Are there any 2 headed babies born near our Nuclear Power Station? NO!

Has any radioactive waste escaped from storage, transformed into a Godzilla and radiated the nation? No.

Has there ever been a sensible argument against the responsible use of uranium for energy and medicinal use? NO, and there probably will never be! Nix to Chernobyl - If the reactor had a containment facility the event never would have happened. That was a fault of socialism, not responsible use of uranium."

Gryphonn's response (had the discussion not been closed):

"The discussion here is about a Uranium mine. Last I checked, Uranium has no use in modern medicine. That's the job of other radioactive isotopes. Well, actually, the discussion is more about Peter Garrett compromising his beliefs for party politics and a healthy salary, but I'll digress again.

Uranium (-235) in itself is not much of a problem. After all, most rocks contain between 2 and 4 parts per million of uranium. The problems start when it is mined and concentrated, making it harmful to humans and difficult to store safely.

Yes, you are correct. We do not have (as far as we've been informed) a 'nuclear bomb'. However, our troops and our allies are using depleted uranium in ammunition, and our allies have nuclear bombs. Is it morally or ethically Ok for us to mine and sell uranium to our allies so they can produce nuclear weapons?

We do not have a nuclear power station, we have a nuclear reactor used to produce neutrons and products such as doped silicon for creating computer chips. Big difference, far less risk than the nuclear energy a nuclear power station produces.
Our reactor is more in line with being a mini reactor...for want of a better explanation.
We can supply that reactor quite easily without having to expand a mine that uses very risky extraction processes.

I am unaware of any radioactive waste leaks, other than what occurred on the seabed south west of England in 2002. But I guess that waste was dumped between 1960 something and 1980, and no Godzilla 'radiated' England, so I guess that doesn't count.

I really feel you should do some study to find out what caused the Chernobyl melt-down and subsequent explosion. Containment facility? Please explain how a containment facility could prevent the top blowing off a nuclear power generator and cause a radioactive cloud to spread across half of Europe. Socialism caused Chernobyl? Socialism didn't cause Chernobyl. Human error caused Chernobyl. Also remember that it's been 22 years or so since that disaster and it is still unsafe to go near the place. There are also hundreds of thousands of hectares of once viable cropland that cannot be used due to contamination. Not to mention thousands of people physically affected by radiation poisoning.

If I have a catastrophic failure of my solar panel or wind turbine, I can replace it on the same patch of land. I don't have to abandon the farm for a thousand years."

Hear, hear.

Leave a Comment

{ Last Page } { Page 4 of 25 } { Next Page }

Do We Want This?

Here is a place where we
can discuss the current
nuclear power debate
in Australia.
A place to voice our
concerns and discuss
alternative sources.
The content of this blog
will periodically be sent
to our leaders in Canberra.
Please feel free to make
comment on the issues
raised for discussion here.
They need to know
just how we feel.

Interesting Reading

Greenpeace - Aust/Pacific
Greenpeace International - End the Nuclear Age
The Australian Wilderness Society
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
CSIRO Energy Research
TreeHugger
Real Climate
Change.org
Green Options
Matter Network
AGO- Map of Renewable Energy Generators