SAY NO TO A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA

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

6:16 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.

The Need To Know

6:44 AM, Wed 7 Feb 2007 .. Posted in Anti Nuclear Sentiments .. 0 comments .. Link

Here's a good little site to have a look at. The Need To Know site gives you lots of little tid-bits of information regarding nuclear damage, fallout, etc. It's an older site, but the information is still pertinant and it's nicely set out. Scroll down to see how much of WA would be destroyed by a 1Mt blast and the residual effects that we could expect... then go to the Blast Mapper to blow up a bigger one. Did you know that it only took 22 years to conceive and build the world's most deadly bomb? Have a look at the time line. Check out the panic quiz and watch real footage of actual nuclear explosions. And learn a bit more about the people who helped with the development of the hydrogen bomb, and some of the more significant events connected with it. It even has a teacher's guide.

Check it out.

Remember Chernobyl... April 26, 1986.

1:15 PM, Tue 6 Feb 2007 .. Posted in Anti Nuclear Sentiments .. 3 comments .. Link

Ok, so one thing we all acknowledge is that the road to a safer and renewable energy source is going to be a bit rocky at some points, but we owe it to ourselves and those we leave behind to explore it, don't we? Why would we jump off a cliff in order to reach a point below us, when with a bit of effort we could find a safe path to the bottom? Ok, it's analogy time again, but sometimes it helps me to put things into perspective. Sometimes simplifying things is the only way to get a really good look at the big picture. This analogy though, was influenced by a dream I had once...
*cue dreamy music; watery fade to the dream scene*

I 'woke up' to find myself standing on the edge of a great cliff. When I looked down all I could see was a dark abyss. I couldn't see the bottom because it was so far down, but I knew that whatever place was down there was where I was supposed to be. I looked around and there were people everywhere... hundreds... all walking around with vague looks of confusion on their faces. Some of them stopped at the edge of the cliff, and as they peered down they seemed to realise that they also needed to be down there. Without any more thought they leapt out from the cliff and disappeared into the void. Knowing that they'd probably fallen to their deaths, I wondered why they'd do a thing like that. I wasn't overly concerned, but I knew that I didn't want to reach my destination that way.

I looked around again. Lying across the abyss to a far-distant opposite side were several large fallen trees. All at once I knew that there was a path on the other side that wound down to the place at the bottom. There were more people... a small flood of them... using the giant trees to cross to the other side of the abyss. Some were running across and some were crawling on their hands and knees... some were losing their grip and falling... some were slipping on patches of moss that they didn't see... and some were being blown out into the abyss by the winds that whipped up unexpectedly... and those who were left behind just kept on their way as though nothing had happened. I considered walking across with the crowd, but I knew that the path on the other side was steep, rocky and prone to landslides. I wasn't scared, but I didn't feel compelled to follow the crowd either... they looked to me like they'd all just recently woken up too.

When I looked around again, I noticed a few people that I hadn't seen earlier. They were wandering around, foraging through bushes and searching through the rocks. I watched them for a while and eventually realised what they were doing. They were forging a new path down the face of the cliff that we were standing on. Every now and then one of them would emerge from behind a bush near the edge of the cliff. Sometimes they carried a basket full of rocks, sometimes they took shovels and cement back down. I realised that if they were successful the entire population would be able to travel safely to whatever it was at the bottom. There would be no more confused leaping at the top of the cliff, no more falling from the bridges, no more slipping down steep and rocky paths. There would be a safe, paved road to traverse... it would no longer be necessary to walk the dangerous path of the giant tree-bridges.

But then I realised that I still felt that pull from below me... that urge to reach the destination as soon as possible. It was like the urge to urinate or pass wind... almost impossible to control... unpleasant, and with only one visible outcome... purge! After an all-too short debate with myself as to whether I should stay and help those forging the new path, I gave in to the urge, turned, and followed the crowd over the bridge. That's when I woke up.

Ok then, time to come back to reality. My dreams might not make much sense to some, but they might go some of the way to explaining why I feel the way I do about certain things. There are events that have enormous signifigance on our psyches, and this was one of mine. I had this dream sometime in my teens and I have never forgotten it. It left me feeling disappointed in myself as I felt that I should have helped the others to explore and build. And to be totally honest, it has probably been the trigger for many of the decisions I have made in life. It boils down to this... should I take the easy way out, blow the consequences?... go with the crowd and make the popular choice?... or should I help to build a pleasant walk that everyone can use?

Another of my influencing factors... on the pertinent subject of today at least... was a movie called "The Day After". It was released in the cinemas in 1983, and I was there to watch it. It's basically a nuclear disaster movie. It outlines how easy it is for a war to break out, then goes on to show the aftermath and the struggles of the people who survived. I was a teenager at the time, and quite frankly, the potential reality of it scared the willies out of me.

And of course, who could forget Chernobyl? On the 26th of April, 1986 this part of Russia was devastated by one of the largest and most talked-about nuclear reactor explosions ever. This year marks the the 21st anniversary of the accident and this article, Remember Chernobyl, has a heap of good stuff to read. Well, some of it isn't so great, but it's real and it deserves to be read. And just for good measure... take a look at chernobyl.info a blog with real life stories from real life people who have had to deal with the tragedy.

Now, I know that there are plenty of things to think about in our quest for cheaper, safer and more easily sustainable power sources, and we can't afford to ignore any of them... this includes the dangers. We would be silly not to take all of this into account. I don't want to just cause a mass panic and discourage others from one path, but we have to find a solution if that path is dangerous... there's no getting around that. If anyone could tell me how to solve the problems that are presented by using nuclear, then I would consider it. But there is no way... ask the folk of Chernobyl. 21 years on and there still isn't an answer... yes, we might be able to clean it all up one day... but how long away is one day? And do you really want to rely on being able to give your families a 'maybe' guarantee that it really is the way to go? Isn't there enough scary stories out there to make you at least look for some other way to go?

In future entries, I want to outline some alternative sources of energy. I want to look at each of them and deconstruct their potential usefulness and difficulties that might present themselves. I'd like to discuss ideas and opinions on how each could be useful to us... or not. I do also want to add a few 'scare tactics', and every now and then I might surprise you with a few nightmare pictures or bore you with an impromptu chemistry lesson. I do also want to touch on the practical human side of all this... things like unemployment, social perceptions, etc. And I'm still in the process of prettying up the template, adding links and searching for ideas on entry subject matter. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I suppose we'll just see where it goes, shall we?

66% of surveyed Australians DO NOT want nuclear power. WHY ARE WE STILL HAVING THIS DEBATE?

9:14 AM, Thu 1 Feb 2007 .. Posted in Anti Nuclear Sentiments .. 14 comments .. Link

The following arcticle (in red text) was published in Rockhampton's local newspaper yesterday, Jan 31 2007. My opinions are included in black text.

Rocky (Rockhampton) Site For Nuclear Plant.

Rockhampton is one of six sites in Queensland suggested for nuclear power plants. Gladstone and Mackay were included in the list released yesterday in a report by left-wing think-tank the Australia Institute. So my family is one of the ones that can't get away from nuclear. Even if Rockhampton says no, Gladstone is approx 100 k to the south, and Mackay is about 300 k to the north. That's close enough to either wipe most of us out or make us very sick in the case of a reactor accident. Basically, we're rooted unless we decide to move thousands of kilometres away!
Reactors were likely to be spaced out along the Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, the study says. What happens to our natural resources in event of an accident? The Great Barrier Reef... The Daintree... our myriad of pristine beaches... The Gold and Sunshine Coasts... Sydney... Melbourne... What do you think will happen to Australia's economy if any or all of these tourist destinations is destroyed or damaged?
In all, the study names 17 likely sites for reactors, based on criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricrity grid. So much for putting them in un-populated desert areas, eh? And read on... to where it says that we'll need 25 reactors to provide one third of our power needs. Where will the other 8 reactors be situated? Perhaps in more populated areas where there are more people who could potentially object? Are they going to outline all of those sites before putting this to a referendum? Or will they wait until after the vote, hoping that those people in those areas will vote 'yes' just because they think there's no danger to them. And then... will they allow you to change your vote after they come clean with all the relevant information? I doubt it.
The institute also surveyed 1200 Australians on their attitude towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66 percent were opposed. A quarter of those surveyed, 25 percent, were supportive, and 9 percent undecided. And how long will it be until our government tells us that they don't care how many people are opposed to it? Will they try to push it through anyway, even when 66% of Australians are opposed to nuclear? I'll bet they try.
The study follows a determined push by the Federal Government towards the nuclear generation of electricity. It makes me wonder just how hard they will push in the end, and whether the recycled water debate is just a precendent for the bringing-in of nuclear power. Are they using that argument to see how quiet Australians will be when their wishes are simply disregarded? What's the point in asking for our oppinions? Why not just make Australia into a communist state so that we don't have any say at all?
A government-commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within tens of kilometres of the east-coast national power grid. Again... thanks for lying to us and telling us that reactors would only be sited in unpopulated areas. I suppose this part of the population don't count? Why not position them in or around larger cities? Because there are more people in places like that who might actually protest if they knew of a reactor close to them.
It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there were to be a price on carbon. So, I'll be willing to bet that there will be a government imposed tax or tarriff on carbon coming up soon... really soon.
That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050. When you look at it like that, it's not really all that great a source of power, is it? Not only are we looking at a few reactors (as the government would have us believe), but at least 25... that's 25 times the potential for an accident. And, think of this... 25 reactors will supply one third of our electricity needs... that means that to fully embrace nuclear power we'll need 75 reactors... based on the population at the moment. In another 50 or 100 years there will be many more Australians than there is now. So, how many will we really need eventually? Where do we stop? 100 reactors? 150 reactors? Eventually there won't be a square foot of our soil that will be safe. We won't even have the option to move somewhere else... somewhere safer.
The institute's director Dr Clive Hamilton said overseas experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentios aspects of the nuclear debate. No shit, Sherlock! That's because people don't want nuclear reactors in their back yards. As a general rule, it wouldn't worry a lot of people if the reactor was to be a thousand kilometres away... but tell them that they're going to be in the 'dead zone', and they don't like it.
"The Prime Minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said. So let's debate! Let's tell them just what we think. I'll be doing that with this blog. It might not help in the long run, but I'd never sleep properly again if I didn't at least try. And if enough of us can speak out, they might be forced to listen. If you'd like to get involved and have your say too, let me know.
"We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues." And if there's going to be a debate, how about demanding that they give us ALL of the information we need... like the locations of the other 58 reactors needed to provide all our electricity needs in the future. Like the locations of the dumps that we will invariably need to rid ourself of the toxic waste that's produced. And while we're at it, how about showing the general public photos of the aftermath of a nuclear explosion... the REAL danger zones... the cancers that are caused by radiation poisoning... and deformed, dying babies. Show us the whole picture, eh? Not just the cutesy stuff.
The report raised the possibility that governments might compensate communities in a bid to placate local opposition to nuclear facilities. As usual, if we don't give the government what they want, they'll resort to bribery. Take advantage of the communities that are either impoverished in some way, or have greedy leaders themselves. And if that doesn't work, what's going to be next on the agenda? Well, going by past records, they'll probably just do it anyway.

Possible reactor sites
Australia Institute Nuclear Factbox
Possible sites for nuclear reactors.
Those areas that I've marked in blue are home to people that I know personally... friends, family. That's a lot of loved ones that I could potentially lose... including me, my partner, most of my extended family, all of my friends, my children, my children's friends, their classmates... the list goes on. How many of these places relate to you, in some way?

Queensland: Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast, Bribie Island.
NSW/ACT: Port Stephens, Central Coast, Port Kembla, Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet.
Victoria: South Gippsland, Westernport, Port Phillip, Portland.
South Australia: Mt Gambia/Millicent, Port Adelaide, Port Augusta/Port Pirie.

Source: Australia Institute.

Do you think it's funny that Canberra isn't one of the included sites? What about Sydney... Brisbane... Melbourne? Are they really not included because there are too many people living there? Or are they some of the 8 sites that we still haven't been told about... again because there are too many people living there? What about the PM's electorate? I didn't see it among the list... oh, but that's right, they can't upset the people in that electorate. If they were to decide that they really didn't like the idea they might not vote for him again... and then... wouldn't he lose his job?

Hmmm!

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