Stop the nuclear industry

by Dr. Alison Broinowski
(Published with permision from the Author for not-for-profit public awareness purposes)

“In late June and early July, just as the Howard Government was dispatching the army to Aboriginal communities to deal with sexual abuse, the U.S. military was involved for two weeks in northern Australia in the biggest ever joint exercise, Talisman Sabre.

Most Australians saw no connection.

Military training areas, uranium mines, sites for future nuclear waste dumps and now Aboriginal land seized by the Commonwealth are dots across the Australian map.

Several of them are connected by the Adelaide-Darwin railway. Having been many times promised, the $1.3 billion link from Alice Springs to Darwin was surprisingly found viable in 1999. By January, 2004, the train was running. The only tenderer, according to research at University of Technology Sydney, was the FreightLink consortium led by Halliburton (then headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney), with state, territory and federal contributions.

FreightLink owns the railway and can operate it for 50 years. It has contracted UK firm Serco, to staff and service the train.

Serco, which manages British nuclear power plants, gained a reputation in 2000 for sacking workers without AWAs at Australian naval bases in Jervis Bay.

In November, 2006, FreightLink was reported to be facing its third annual loss in a row. It tried to sell a majority stake in the railway for $360 million, without success. The owners promised to invest an additional $14 million over three years, presumably betting on the line’s long-term profitability.

It must expect – or have been promised – the railway will serve the potentially lucrative nuclear and defence industries.

Between 2004 and 2006, the Australian and U.S. governments announced more collaboration between American forces and the ADF, including missile defence (Star Wars) training, and interoperability. Several defence facilities in northern Australia have been built or expanded:

at Bradshaw and Delamere in the Northern Territory, Shoalwater Bay in Queensland and Yampi Sound and Geraldton in Western Australia.

The railway passes near several bases, the biggest uranium deposits in the world and the mines at Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs), Beverley, Ranger and Honeymoon.

Freightlink’s main business now is transporting iron ore, manganese and uranium to Darwin for export. In June, 2006, just before Prime Minster John Howard set up a nuclear power inquiry, businessmen Hugh Morgan, Robert Champion de Crespigny and Ron Walker registered Australian Nuclear Energy. It later emerged they had discussed with Mr Howard a plan to build a nuclear plant near Port Augusta.

(Learn more about Hugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Morgan_%28Australian_businessman%29
> snip from Wikipedia

In June 2006, Hugh Morgan formed the company Australian Nuclear Energy with Fairfax chairman Ron Walker and fellow mining executive Robert Champion de Crespigny, planning to build nuclear power plants in Australia. Morgan has a 20% stake in the company.

Controversially, Prime Minister John Howard revealed that he had a discussion with Mr Walker about the company days before he announced an inquiry into nuclear power (the inquiry predicted that Australia could have 25 nuclear reactors producing a third of the country’s electricity by 2050)

Formerly an outspoken opponent of Aboriginal Land Rights (Morgan claimed Native Title threatened Australia’s sovereignty), Morgan has more recently spoken of reconciling mining with Aboriginal welfare. With newly introduced, less transparent conservation agreements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act , Morgan has flagged how an internationally owned nuclear waste repository could now be built (such as the one recently announced on Aboriginal land).

see more about Ron and Robert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Walker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Champion_de_Crespigny

The railway would take uranium ore to Darwin for export, enrichment and fabrication, and bring it back to Port Augusta as nuclear fuel for the reactor. The spent fuel
would then go back by rail to Darwin for export, or return to the NT for disposal at a waste site.

The only “suitable” sites for disposal of nuclear waste under federal government control are in the NT. If the Commonwealth takes control of as many as 80 Aboriginal communities through five-year leases in the name of
protecting children, it will put vast land areas at the Federal Government’s discretion.

The Government has begun to repeal parts of its 1999 legislation prohibiting nuclear activities.

But it is unlikely before the 2007 election to say where or how Australian nuclear waste will be stored.

The U.S., meanwhile, has more than 47,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste to get rid of, because its new site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, does not meet safety requirements.

The controlling American interest in the railway indicates Australia will store American waste too.

It takes more than the Ghan railway to connect the dots in an election year. A lot more is happening than Australians are being told.

..........

Dr Alison Broinowski is a former Australian diplomat
and is now a visiting fellow at the Australian National
University’s Faculty of Asian Studies. Her latest book
is Allied and Addicted.

Robots scour sea for atomic waste – UK, The Observer
Full story…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/25/pollution.conservation

Submarines search for radioactive material dumped off the Scottish coast in the 1980s

snips…(CAPS mine)

Although the UKAEA KEPT NO PRECISE ACCOUNTS for building and running Dounreay, it is known to have cost several billion pounds.

“We built the first fast breeder reactor to generate electricity for a national grid”.
For 40 years, test reactors – part of Britain’s fast breeder reactor construction programme – operated there but the technology turned out to be messy. Fast breeders use liquid metal coolants and their contaminated remnants still await removal. “At the time, engineers were only interested in building reactors. No one thought how we might dismantle them,”

The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), owners of Dounreay, was eventually fined 140,000 pounds at Wick Sheriff Court last year for ‘very grave errors’ that led to the beach’s contamination. The authority’s safety director, Dr John Crofts, admitted the release represented “an unacceptable legacy.”

Two kilometres of beach outside the Dounreay nuclear plant have been closed since 1983, and fishing banned, when it was found old fuel rod fragments were being accidentally pumped into the sea.

NUCLEAR POWER & WATER SCARCITY
by Dr Jim Green

By next week we will have 12,000 copies of a professionally-designed version of this infosheet… timed for National Water Week, October 21-27. Please let FoE know if you want a bundle – jim.green at foe.org.au

NUCLEAR POWER & WATER SCARCITY

Friends of the Earth, Australia
PO Box 222 Fitzroy, Victoria 3065.
Ph: (03) 9419 8700
Email: jim.green at foe.org.au

A number of problems associated with the nuclear industry are much-discussed – the contribution of “peaceful” nuclear programs to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the nuclear waste legacy, and the risk of catastrophic accidents or attacks. Less well understood are the serious impacts of the nuclear industry on water resources.

Water scarcity is already impacting on the power industry in Australia, largely because of our heavy reliance on water-guzzling coal-fired plants. Introducing nuclear power – the most water-intensive of all electricity sources – would exacerbate those problems.

Current problems and issues in Australia include:

. expensive long-distance water transportation to some power plants because of dwindling local water supplies;
. reduced electrical generating capacity and output at some coal and hydro plants;
. increased prices for water;
. higher and more volatile electricity prices;
. relaxation of laws and regulations concerning usage of river water and groundwater for some power plants;
. increased risks of blackouts; and
. intensified competition for scarce water resources between power plants, agriculture, residences, industries, environmental flows, etc.

The Commonwealth-State Ministerial Council on Energy met in early 2007 to discuss the impact of water shortages on electricity generation, and has requested regular updates from the National Electricity Market Management Company.

Current problems have led power utilities to explore alternatives such as the use of wastewater, groundwater or desalination. There is also an expectation that new plants are more likely to be built on the coast and use seawater. The use of dry (air) cooling systems may become more common but air-cooled plants are more expensive, less efficient and emit more greenhouse gases.

The Energy Supply Association of Australia notes that: ‘Australia is a water constrained continent and the issue of adequacy of water supplies for generator cooling purposes is already becoming problematic in some areas. There are restrictions on the volume of water that generators may draw and in some States this is beginning to present as a limitation on the amount of electricity that some baseload generators may be able to deliver in hot months’.

Nuclear Power Plants

Water for a nuclear power plant can be sourced from a river, lake, dam, or the ocean. The water has two uses – it is converted to steam to drive a turbine, and cooling water converts the steam back to water.

Nuclear power plants consume large amounts of water – typically 13-24 billion litres per year, or 35-65 million litres per day.

A December 2006 by the Commonwealth Department of Parliamentary Services states: ‘Per megawatt existing nuclear power stations use and consume more water than power stations using other fuel sources. Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations.’

Water outflows from nuclear plants expel relatively warm water which can have adverse local impacts in bays and gulfs, as can heavy metal and salt pollutants.

The US Environmental Protection Agency states: ‘Nuclear power plants use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling. When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river for steam production and cooling, fish and other aquatic life can be affected. Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts, build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems. These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.’

A US report, ‘Licensed to Kill: How the Nuclear Power Industry Destroys Endangered Marine Wildlife and Ocean Habitat to Save Money’, details the nuclear industry’s destruction of delicate marine ecosystems and large numbers of animals, including endangered species. Most of the damage is done by water inflow pipes, while there are further adverse impacts from the expulsion of heated water.
See the report and video at: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensedtokill

Reactors in numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves. Nuclear utilities have also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water.

‘Coal-fired power plants have large water requirements for cooling and steam generation, but these are dwarfed by the water needs of nuclear power. Some nuclear power plants can use seawater for cooling, but problems emerge when they are situated on bays and gulfs, for there the warm discharge water can accumulate and have a large impact on the local marine ecology.’
- Tim Flannery, 2007 Australian of the Year

Comparing Energy Sources

The water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Tim Flannery notes that hastening the uptake of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal ‘hot rocks’ will help ease the water crisis as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Water consumption of different energy sources:
(litres per kilowatt-hour of electrical output)
Nuclear ............. 2.3
Coal ............. 1.9
Oil ............. 1.6
Combined Cycle Gas .. 0.95
Solar PV ….......... 0.11
Wind ............. 0.004

Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes: 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar PV is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source.

More Information:

• The detailed, referenced version of this Friends of the Earth paper is posted at: http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues

• National Generators Forum http://www.ngf.com.au

• National Electricity Market Management Company, April 2007, “Potential drought impact on electricity supplies”, http://www.nemmco.com.au

• Greenpeace, 2007, “The Impact of Coal-Fired Electricity Generation and Australia’s Freshwater Resources”, http://www.greenpeace.org/australia

• Dr. Ian Rose, October 2006, Nuclear Power Station, http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/office/NuclearPowerStation261006.doc

Beware of “missing words” when perusing political party’s policies and deciding where you will be casting your PRECIOUS 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th votes….

If, like me, you wish to see an end to the nuclear industry (firstly) on moral grounds, followed closely by environmental grounds, and clearly not needed on financial grounds, then expanding the mining of Uranium in Australia is NOT wanted, needed or necessary.

Of course if you are a Rio Tinto shareholder, you may think otherwise.

Recently, whilst participating in the Cycle against the nuclear cycle, I visited the Gladstone Office of our local standing MP, Paul Neville (National/Liberal Coalition) and spoke with his Secretary. She couldn’t tell me if their party would be considering a nuclear power plant in this electorate or not. Her advice to me and my friend was that this issue needed further investigation. “Informed” decisions would not be forthcoming until after the election.

To me, that says… “when our party is voted back into power we will do whatever we want, it’s not your business now. You are not a scientist!”
or… “don’t you worry about that”.

I am a registered voter. Where I put my mark IS my business. Where my taxes are spent IS my business. I need answers before these two parties are given further opportunities at destroying MY future.

The Labor Party won’t commit to nuclear power stations (yet), they will however commit to an expansion of Uranium mining to supply the growing nuclear industry – and they already have.

The Greens are clear where they stand. They stand in favour of sustainable development, social justice and equality, clearly, nuclear does not fit the bill. They have made it clear in their policies that they will not support an expansion of the nuclear industry.

As have the Socialist Alliance, likewise for the Democrats.

The new party “Climate Change Coalition” (CCC) stands in favour of sustainable housing developments, improved transportation systems and better education (as do the two parties listed above).

The CCC are in favour of many good things which will mitigate the worst effects of climate change in the long term but so are the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and the Democrats.

However, the CCC intend to leave ALL OTHER polices to the “conscience vote” of any candidate who is elected. This tends to really worry me. How will their ideas and policies be implemented? Where is their financial plan? What say the CCC on health care? Where do they stand on Industrial Relations and Workplace Agreements?

What also worries me is that they leave the door open for the nuclear industry when they state:

...”Does nuclear power have a role to play in a climate change reduction strategy? James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia Hypothesis, thinks that it can be a useful element in a greenhouse reduction strategy for some countries. Others, such as Australian scientist and climate change campaigner, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe sees nuclear power as a cure as bad as the disease.
This debate is unavoidable and essential. The CCC encourages our best and brightest minds to state their cases – realising that any debate on Nuclear Power immediately involves alternative power.”
In other words… when it comes to the nuclear industry and nuclear power… they sit on the fence. Let others worry about that in an informed and “open” debate? History clearly shows the “openness” of the nuclear industry.

There is no need for further debate.
The nuclear industry is not safe, and it never was, and it never will be. Simple. Listen to Ian Lowe!

In any doubt? visit:

Startling fact and figures:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1888283

Or “Maralinga – Learn from our experience” by my (then) 15yo daughter, Natalie:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1881061
and explore the highly educational links in the Appendix

or Nuclear Industry – human effects – facts you should know http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1875511

It appears that the CCC’s nuclear policies are hand in hand with those of our currently elected leaders… they “may” support nuclear industry power generation and the associated waste.
There “vote catching policies” are attached in a PDF document.

I think I will be putting my vote for them below the ALP, just to be sure that their preferences do not re-elect a National/Liberal Coalition. Unless they can inform me clearly they will not support nuclear power or an expansion in the nuclear industry in Australia.

I hope other voters are aware of the insidious nature of the nuclear industry and all of their “dirty tricks” to retain their control over our precious taxes.

I made my decision, and spoke to the boss today. I will be cycling for two weeks (starting June 25) from Rockhampton to Bundy in the cycle against the nuclear cycle.

My boss said he was happy with my work to date and i wouldnt be getting the sack, and it is inconvenient for them which i understand.
Perhaps he will understand when he visits my website http://globalclimatechangeaction.org

I hope everyone reading these words will seriously consider joining the ride to Canberra, there is a northern and southern ride… End the nuclear madness, renewable enregy is the positive way forwards
visit http://canc.org.au and for further info.
On the Peace Convergence in 8 days visit http://peaceconvergence.com or http://shoalwaterbay.org

Anne

Today we (Nat and I) asked our boss if we could take some time off work to join the peace convergence 22, 23, 24th June, Qld, Australia
http://peaceconvergence.com

We had committed to going before getting the jobs.
Further, I asked if I could take extra time off to do the Rockhampton to Bundaberg leg of the CANC ride (some further 2 weeks).
See Northern Ride: http://canc.org.au

Unfortunately, I cannot go all the way to Canberra again, as i am casual, no work, no pay. I am eager to return to the job as I like it and all of the team in the packing shed are wonderful people.
On the other hand, we do not want to lose our jobs … and as the recent rains have really slowed the season, i hope they will give us a favourable decision on Wednesday, when we return to work.

My family, friends, neighbours and I are attending the peace convergence to draw attention to the facts that;
1. we need safe sustainable, renewable and reliable energy supplies … with the aim of “benign” output.
2. we do not need nuclear ships in our harbours.
3. we must not allow our troops to be exposed and unmonitored in the vicinty of Depleted Uranium weapons either on the battle field, or anywhere else.
4. we do not need nuclear energy
5. we do not need nuclear waste.

I hope you will consider joining us.

Warm regards
Anne

and under the Howard “regime” how things have progressed in three years?

Subject: Senate: Chief Scientist in pocket of Rio Tinto

Thursday, 5 August 2004

SENATE 25627 CHAMBER

COMMITTEES

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education
References Committee

Report:

Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) (3.42
p.m.)-On behalf of the Chair of the Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education References Committee,
Senator Carr, I present the report of the committee
on the Office of the Chief Scientist, together
with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents
presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.
...
Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.57 p.m.) – The committee has found that there is a clear conflict of public and private duties arising from the dual parttime roles performed by Dr Batterham. His circumstances
fall squarely within any mainstream definition
of conflict of interest. The follow-on from that is that
clearly the Chief Scientist should relinquish one of his
jobs. It is not tenable for the Chief Scientist to maintain
both the jobs of Chief Scientist of this nation and chief
technologist for the major coal company, Rio Tinto.

(My note: and uranium miner/exporter)

There is a clear conflict of duty and interest as seen
from the public’s point of view. The committee’s findings
speak volumes of that, but they speak also of the
need for there to be an improvement in the way in
which the government applies Public Service rules to
all posts to ensure that this sort of conflict does not
apply in the future.

I want to point to the some of the background as to
why the Chief Scientist has been found to be in an invidious
position from the point of view of public perception.
Rio Tinto is a big corporation. We are in an
age where there is enormous concern about global
warming. We are in an age where government has a big
role in stimulating technology and research about ways
forward that get us off the global warming treadmill
and the position of the world’s worst per capita polluter
amongst industrialised nations.

The government has been very tardy about that.
There has been not only limited but also dwindling
government input into renewable energy and energy
efficiency businesses, which are hugely job prospective
and hugely export oriented for the future of this country.

I want to point out here that 12 or 13 years ago we
outcompeted Japan in the production of solar panels.
Now Japan produces 50 per cent of the world’s output
and Australia produces less than one per cent. This is
the sunshine country. Japan is technology oriented and

looks much more at the future. It has streeted the field
while this government has pulled the purse strings.
But the government has not pulled the purse strings
everywhere.

When we look at Rio Tinto, the company for which the

Chief Scientist has been chief technologist
since his appointment in 1999, we find that some
$340 million in direct, indirect or enhancing grants has
gone to that corporation.

- In October 2001, $35 million went, in the form of a

24-year interest free loan, to the Rio Tinto Foundation

for a Sustainable Minerals Industry.

The foundation is not a legal entity; it is an advisory
group to Rio Tinto.

Also in October 2001, $102 million went to a

strategic investment incentive for energy generation

to support the Comalco alumina refinery
at Gladstone.

In May 2002, another $125 million went to a

strategic investment incentive for the HIsmelt
iron smelter.

More funding has gone to cooperative research centres

in which Rio Tinto has core participation.

In December 2000, $14.5 million went to the
CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development.

In December 2002, $21.8 million went to the

CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies.

In December 2002, $18.8 million went to a

sustainable resource processing investigation.

In August 2003, $23.4 million in additional
funding was allocated to the CRC for Greenhouse Gas
Technologies with in-kind contributions from Geoscience
Australia, the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office.

When you look at the other side of the ledger,

Mr Acting Deputy President, you find that the well of
funding for the sunrise industries for environmental
technology-which are based on renewable energy
serving the whole of Australia and on energy efficiency-
is basically dry.

We have seen this extraordinary conjunction of the

billowing of government largesse directly and

indirectly to a huge company like Rio Tinto, whose

chief technologist is Dr Batterham, at the same time

as Dr Batterham has been the Chief Scientist
for the government – whose role is to advise the
government on the way forward. This gives the appearance
of a conflict of interest.

We heard a lot in the committee process about how
the Chief Scientist absents himself from decisions
which involve Rio Tinto, about how he is not there
when the vote is taken and about how-when it comes
to CRCs and applications for other funding from Rio
Tinto – a firewall is set up in Rio Tinto so that the
Chief Scientist is not involved. But the committee
could not get, and did not get, any indication from Rio
Tinto of what that firewall was – nor did anybody in
the government have any idea of what the firewall was.
Nobody could tell us. Any fair observer from the outside
would be led to believe that this firewall is a fiction-
insofar as anybody could believe that there are
tight, laid-down and publicly examinable rules which
are, in effect, a firewall.

We all know that it is not about the words you say

and it is not about the contacts you make;

it is about the influence you have that can
work enormously to favour your point of view in working
with posts, such as the post of Chief Scientist.

The committee also found that, on one occasion, Dr
Batterham did use unpublished and unverified data,
which was supplied by Rio Tinto, in a meeting of
Commonwealth and state energy ministers and failed
to declare the source of that information. That created
the appearance of a real conflict of interest. The report
went on to say:

The same data subsequently appeared in a high profile report
prepared by a PMSEIC working group. It appears that the
working group was not aware Rio Tinto had commissioned
information attributed to a private company, Roam Consulting.
37 However, the committee finds that the Chief Scientist
is not responsible for this oversight because he was not directly
involved in preparing the presentation to PMSEIC and
did not present it to the working group. The committee concludes
that this case has contributed to a perception of conflict
of interest which risks eroding public confidence in the
independence of advice provided to Government by the
Chief Scientist.

This is no small matter here, because the figures that
went through to the Prime Minister’s scientific advisory
group were extraordinarily influential in terms of
the outcomes for this nation.

They presented a very low-cost option for geosequestration.

They actually came from Rio Tinto and its consulting company.

That ought to have been acknowledged, but it was not.

If you are going to have the presentation of verifiable
information to such extraordinarily influential advisory
organisations as the Prime Minister’s scientific advisory
group then they need to know the source of that
information.

The committee was unable to find anybody
else on the planet who had such low costings for
the potential of geosequestration.

Nobody else was able to present such low costings,

and therefore present such a favourable view of the

potential for unproven technology to take carbon

dioxide out of the exudates from coal-fired power

stations and put them underground.

This is unproven technology. It was presented
as the lowest cost option without the information being
identified as coming at the behest of the coal company
for whom the Chief Scientist is the chief technologist-
that is, Rio Tinto.

Of course, this has the mark of a conflict of public
interest written all over it. Such a circumstance should
not be allowed to recur. Those who are competing for
government moneys, those who are promoting solar
power, wind power, biofuels, energy efficiency, wave
power and geothermal power all have a right to feel
aggrieved that such an important committee as that
advising the Prime Minister could use figures which
were not corroborated by other scientific sources but
which came from the company itself. I seek leave to
continue my remarks later.

Maralinga – by Natalie Goddard
Aged 15
Subject: Australian History
19th November 2004

“We got up in the morning from the tent… everyone had red eyes… Right here the smoke caught us it came over us… We tried to open our eyes in the morning but we couldn’t open them. [We had] red eyes and tongues and our coughing was getting worse …We got people still suffering. You haven’t got one healthy child nowadays.” Eileen Kampakuta Brown.
Site 01: http://www.iratiwanti.org

The negative effects the nuclear testing at Maralinga had on the inhabitants of Australia is abundant, and it’s not going away soon. During the 1950’s and 60’s the British Government tested atomic bombs in South Australia at Emu Junction and Maralinga (refer to appendix 01). The Australian Government barely questioned the nature and effect of the nuclear tests as they forged close links with the British Military.

The nuclear weapons used contain deadly substances which remain radioactive for up to 250,000 years, contaminating land and water systems.

The radiation exposure to local communities and surrounding country was extensive as dense radioactive clouds travelled far across the land. For the Indigenous people and other inhabitants of the Western Desert, radiation exposure caused severe sickness and death. The nuclear testing in South Australia revealed nuclear fallout and overall government cover-ups.

Maralinga, an area of 3,200 square kilometres in South Australia’s desert Nullabor region, was occupied by the Maralinga Tjarutja Aboriginal tribe when it was leased to Britain in 1952.

Between 1952 and 1963 the British government, with the agreement and support of Australia carried out nuclear tests at three sites in Australia – the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia.

Maralinga was developed as the permanent proving ground site, following a request of the British in 1954 and, after its completion in 1956, was the location of all trials conducted in Australia.

It was developed as a joint facility with a shared funding arrangement.
Site 02: http://www.naa.gov.au

By 1963 nine major nuclear atmospheric explosions had taken place within the site, including the two US tests that were conducted under a sub-leasing arrangement.

Three other British tests were held in Western Australia. The reason for the British government using Australia as testing grounds was simply the first step in their ‘coming-of-age’ as a nuclear power.

In 1957, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan explained news of the successful tests, would put his country “in the same position as the United states or Soviet Russia. It will be possible then to discuss on equal terms,” he said
Site 03: http://www.atimes.com.

There were numerous tests carried out in South Australia, which ranged from large scale nuclear bombs to ‘minor’ ones which contaminated miles of land.

The actual amount of tests carried out in Australia and at Maralinga varies. The numbers depend on where the tests took place, or whether they were atomic bombs, nuclear tests, nuclear atmospheric explosions, development trials, or the hundreds of ‘minor’ tests.

The British exploded nine atomic bombs, the final being twice as powerful as the bomb that flattened Hiroshima
Site 04: http://www.abc.net.au

There were 15 nuclear tests which contaminated Aboriginal lands with plutonium and uranium
Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org.

Nine major nuclear atmospheric explosions took place within the site, including two US tests that were conducted under a sub-leasing arrangement.

Three other British tests were held in Western Australia.
Site 03: http://www.atimes.com.

There were many development trials conducted within Maralinga. A further 15 of these were far more damaging.
Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org.

The ‘minor’ tests consisted of about 500 experiments, such as crashing aeroplanes with nuclear bombs on board, and setting fire to atom bombs and placing them in conventional explosions.

These tests actually left far more radiation than the others, and resulted in large amounts of plutonium spreading over a wide area
Site 06: http://www.greenleft.org.au

It is therefore no surprise to find the death rates and cancer rates higher than ever in these areas.

So far, from the Australian Electoral Commission there’s been over 9,000 people deceased from the 10,700 names listed on the Maralinga nominal roll.

The national average for cancer is 25 per cent, but at Maralinga, the death certificates are recording 75-85 per cent cancer.

Terry Toon, Atomic Ex-servicemen’s Association said “At one test, the kite explosion, the scientist said the mushroom cloud would go away from us, but instead of going north away from us, it came directly south over us. We went into some steelbound huts … and when the mushroom cloud went over us, it was like a hailstorm”
Site 04: http://www.abc.net.au

According to Asia Times, Britain has admitted for the first time that troops were used as human guinea pigs for a testing program in Australia in the 1950’s that helped it join the United States and the Soviet Union in the nuclear club. The admission came grudgingly, and only after it had been independently confirmed in released Australian military records that servicemen were deliberately exposed to nuclear fallout to test their levels of tolerance to illness.

Lawyers representing veterans in the UK and Australia contend that safety was so lax that scores were exposed to radiation illnesses. Often the only protection they were offered was “a quick wash under a hose.” One mixed unit of soldiers were told to walk through the test zone three days after a detonation, for what was termed “clothing tests.” Dressed in heavy woolen garments the soldiers – none of them volunteers – were given a battery of medical tests to check which type of clothing offered “the best protection against radioactive contamination in conditions of warfare.”

Both Britain and Australia deny that the men were in danger
Site 03: http://www.atimes.com

Not only was the Australian and British government negligent, but they actually used the troops for their own power and gain, plus they have failed to effectively do anything for the Aborigines and their land.

Britain failed to provide for the welfare of the Aborigines who were deprived of their heritage by the tests. It has declined to foot the bill for cleaning up the site, which remains highly contaminated despite the removal of some radioactive material in 1997 and will be partly uninhabitable for at least another 30 years
Site 03: http://www.atimes.com

At the time, the Australian government displayed very little interest in the possible long-term effects of the tests. However, by the 1980’s these effects started to become clear.

Australian servicemen and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land were suffering blindness, sores, and illnesses like cancer
Site 06: http://www.greenleft.org.au

The Aboriginals wish to return to the land providing it is safe to do so. They have been advised that some of the land is not suitable for permanent occupation and 450 km² is encircled by boundary markers to remind them that this is so. The boundary markers might have a life of 50 years, but half of the plutonium will still be there in 24,000 years
Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org

The troops used by the British government as a testing program have been stricken with a range of cancers and deformities, some of the soldiers have been fighting for decades to have their plight accorded official recognition, which might open the door to compensation. More than 200 Australian veterans or their families have lodged claims for compensation for illness or death due to radiation exposure
Site 06: http://www.greenleft.org.au

Now that the law suits are flooding in, usually in response to second-generation birth defects, Australia has been quick to shift the compensation burden to Britain. London argues that there is no medical evidence linking the defects with Maralinga.

In September 1997, it had informed the European Court of Human Rights that servicemen were never allowed into the testing areas, a statement that now has a decidedly hollow ring
Site 03: http://www.atimes.com

There were 220 recommendations of the Royal Commission which investigated the damage that had been caused to the land. One of these recommendations was for group compensation for all of those people affected by the testing. The commission had found that while Aboriginal people were supposed to have been removed from the area during testing, many were actually in the area during and after the tests and had been exposed to high levels of radiation. For the last 10 years, the Maralinga Tjarutja people have been fighting a long battle to win group compensation.

Angelina Wonga, an Indigenous person who lived through the experience of the nuclear testing at Maralinga, explains at http://www.irantiwanti.org (Site 07):

“I was in Wantjapila, with all the family. Sitting down. And when we seen a bomb went out from the South. And said, ‘Eh, what’s that?’ And when we see the wind blowing it to where we were sitting down. Nobody got a warning, nobody.

That was the finish of mother and father. They all passed away through that. I was only there. Buried the grandmother. I was the only one left. I went back to where I was born. People there were passing away, some type of flu. And I was the only one left. I lost everything. And the Government never pay me anything, loss of mother.

The smoke went right through the land. Everybody was sick. I’ve got damages too, with my eyes. Can’t see far. Memory no good. Can’t think properly. Asthma trouble, can’t talk and sing properly. Because of that. It’s time they gave me compensation, pay me back.”

Finally in November 2003 the indigenous people won settlement of $13.5 million from the federal government. They are now communicating to the people what has been done and discussing ways of using the funds for resettlement of the community and development of useful resources. Sixteen people from the Aboriginal community are also seeking individual compensation Site 06: http://www.greenleft.org.au.

The Indigenous people of South Australia have finally been given compensation for the damage done to their lives and the decades of fighting have finally paid off, although it won’t ever alleviate the contamination.

Plutonium and uranium fallout from the nuclear tests contaminated Aboriginal lands. Even while cleaning up these sites, further contamination occurred (refer to appendix 02 & 03).

Although the government declared the Maralinga site safe following a 1967 cleanup, surveys from the 1980s proved otherwise, prompting a new clean-up project. Conflicts of interest, cost-cutting measures, shallow burials of radioactive waste, and other management ‘compromises’ have left hundreds of square kilometres of Aboriginal lands contaminated and unfit for rehabilitation (refer to appendix 04).

Clearly, Dr. John Loy, CEO of the Australian nuclear regulatory organization was incorrect in saying that the Maralinga cleanup project represented the “world’s best practice.”

The project was a compromise from the beginning and was never intended to be a total clean up. There are still hundreds of square kilometres of land contaminated with plutonium. The government says that all but 120 km² are now safe, but this is misleading. What they mean is that 120 km² of land is still contaminated which would leave an Aboriginal person living a semi-traditional lifestyle receiving an effective dose of 5 mSv/a (five times that allowed for other Australians). Within the 120 km², the effective dose would be up to 13 times greater Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org

For decades after the British weapons tests in Australia, body parts were taken from corpses for tests to ascertain how widely nuclear contamination had spread, without the next of kin being asked for permission or even informed. In Britain, there is newly released evidence that baby bodies were delivered to American laboratories, and in Australia authorities now freely admit to the undertaking of an extensive program from 1957-78 which saw bones removed from up to 5000 bodies for use in their research
Site 09: http://www.geocities.com

Overall, the nuclear testing in South Australia revealed nuclear fallout and government cover-ups. There was total negligence towards the future effects the nuclear testing would have on the Indigenous people of Australia, the workers and the land which has been contaminated beyond repair. Neither Britain nor Australia will accept full responsibility for the damage done.

Whoever accepts responsibility for the site should recognize that they will have to rely for several thousand years on assurances from a government that has not kept to agreements made only 10 years ago
Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org

Appendix:

Appendix 01:
The Taranaki nuclear test site. The largest testing site located within Maralinga.
(Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V7N2Parkinson.html)

Appendix 02 & 03:

Only “some grams” of plutonium-contaminated dust were blown away during the Maralinga ‘clean-up’ because of inadequate dust suppression, according to a government official (Senate, 3/5/00). Thousands of tonnes in fact.
(Site 08: http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/)

Appendix 04:
Fallout contamination from the nuclear tests at Maralinga.

(Site 01: http://www.iratiwanti.org/iratiwanti.php3?page=atomic_tests)
Bibliography:

Document on World Wide Web:
N/a. N/a, Brief History of the Bombs [Online]. URL:
Site 01: http://www.iratiwanti.org/irantiwanti.php3?page=atomic_tests

Document on World Wide Web:
N/a. 2001, British nuclear tests at Maralinga [Online]. URL:
Site 02: http://www.naa.gov.au/publications/facts_sheets/FS129.html

Document on World Wide Web:
Boyd, A. 2001, Fallout from nuclear amnesia [Online]. URL:
Site 03: http://www.atimes.com/oceania/CD16Ah02.html

Document on World Wide Web:
Sexton, M. 2000, 7.30 Report – Maralinga finally cleaned up [Online]. URL:
Site 04: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s105126/htm

Document on World Wide Web:
Parkinson, A. N/a, Maralinga: The Clean-Up of a Nuclear Test Site [Online]. URL:
Site 05: http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V7N2Parkinson.html

Document on World Wide Web:
Fernades, S. N/a, Maralinga: nuclear testing in Australia [Online]. URL:
Site 06: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/196/196p11.htm

Document on World Wide Web:
N/a. N/a, Irati Wanti – Kungkas [Online]. URL:
Site 07: http://www.iratiwanti.org/iratiwanti.php3?page=kungkas

Document on World Wide Web:
Green, J. N/a, Nuclear and Environmental Research [Online]. URL:
Site 08: http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/

Document on World Wide Web:
Colin, J. May 5, 2003, Answers for 300 mothers URL:
Site 09: http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/bodyparts.html

Document on World Wide Web:
Green, J. N/a, Maralinga: govt covers-up nuclear contamination [Online]. URL:
Site 10: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/511/511p24.htm

Document on World Wide Web:
Borschmann, G. 2000, Maralinga: The Fall Out Continues [Online]. URL:
Site 11: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s120383.htm

Save our Coastlines!

Write to these Australian Politicians…
(and to your local Media)

Operation Talisman Saber 2007 =
US/Aus Military invasion of Australia’s tropical shores
= War Games

DEMAND ANSWERS
Suggested Letters and Email Addresses:
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/node/64

Reference Materials:
http://shoalwaterbay.org
http://peaceconvergence
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org

Please help us!

INDIA:
via: http://lists.aidindia.org/mailman/listinfo/aid-awareness

By Dayamani Barla
(Translated by Vidya Jonnalagadda)
More information: http://www.jadugoda.net

SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS IN 45 OF EVERY 100 WOMEN,

CHILDREN ARE DYING; MOST ARE BECOMING PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED.

The soil of Jadugoda in the Jharkhand

In the region of the uranium mines, in villages such as
Chatikocha, Dumardeeh, Telaitaand, Echada, Bhatin, and
Lipighututu, 45 of every hundred women are suffering from
spontaneous abortions.

The children are dying. Most of the children are becoming physically and mentally handicapped.

People are not living beyond 65 years of age. No one wants to
marry the girls from this area. The girls who did get married
are being abandoned for their inability to bear children. Under
the influence of radioactivity, physical malformations, cancer
and pulmonary diseases are assuming demonic dimensions.
region has provided uranium to run the Atomic Energy program in
the country and develop Nuclear capabilities, but the Santhal
aadivasis of this region are dying a slow death by uranium
radiation.

Women visited Telaitaand on July eight to see and hear for
themselves the misery of the women affected by uranium
radiation. The ailing from the affected villages of Chatikocha,
Maatigoda, and Tireel related their woes to the members of the
Commission for two and a half hours.

For the first time, a team from National Commission for Ghanshyam Biruli told the Commission members that the simple
folk of the village are not even aware of the fact that
radiation emanates from the Tailing Pond. He added that most of
the babies born are deformed. People from other villages do not
want to marry the girls from the affected villages. Those who
were married but did not beget children have been abandoned.

These women do not want to marry again for the fear that the
next husband too might dump them if they cannot have children.
such diseases here”. Of Mado’s five children, three have died.

Marang Bhai of Tilaitaand was married 10 years ago. Marang Bhai
told that she had conceived once, but the fetus aborted at five
months. After that, she has never conceived. Her husband left
her as she did not have a child. She has returned to her
parents’ home. Three children of Sumitra Soren have died: one
within 24 hours of birth, the other two immediately after birth.
The fourth child was born ill. The entire skull of the baby is
soft and it has other health problems.

Both members of the Commission listened intently to the anguish of the women.

There was a long line of women wanting to share their pain

Mrs. Saaro had completed 20 years of marriage to Mangal Maanzi
but did not have children. Since Saaro did not bear children,
Mangal married again, this time to Dumani. But his luck did not
change. He did not beget a child from his second wife either.
Mangal Maanzi is employed in the UCIL (Uranium Council of India
Ltd.) mines.

Budhani Bera of Dumurdeeh had an abortion in the ninth month of
her first pregnancy. Her second pregnancy ended with an abortion
in the eighth month of pregnancy. She has a child of four years,
who is always unwell.

Simotee Maandi was married in Beerigoda. She told that her first
child was stillborn. After that she has not conceived.

Mrs. Dhanumati has two children. She told that both the children
and she herself are perpetually unwell.

Mrs. Taramani told that UCIL had annexed six acres of their land
and they had not received any compensation to date.

General of UCIL, the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Rahul Kumar, and
Dr. Khan, refuted the claims that there was any kind of adverse
health effect on the people due to radiation from uranium. They
dismissed the notion that there is any connection between health
and radiation.

The officials of UCIL said, “Safety measures are followed one hundred percent of the time”.
Indicating the Tailing Pond under construction in Telaitaand,
Ghanshyam Biruli asked the officials, “Is this region safe?” In
response the officials quipped, “There is no relationship
between this (health problems) and that (the Pond)”.

Asking the officials, “What is your policy regarding the
abortions, child deaths and malformations?” The officials
replied, “We will visit the villages and assess the health of
the inhabitants”. Highlighting their paperwork, the officials
announced, “We have visited villages and collected blood samples
from around three thousand people. The reports for these not yet
completed”.

Boiling with anger at this, 33-year old Dumaka Murmoo demanded,
“When did the Health Officials come to the villages to survey
the health of the residents, when did they gather material for
the survey? Not a single person for the villages knows about
this!”

The team members queried, “According to you, what are the guidelines for the distance from the Tailing Pond at which the displaced can be resettled?” In response, they said, “One and a half kilometers”, whereas in reality, displaced families are living in homes constructed just below the Tailing Pond. In addition, despite opposition from the people, another Tailing Pond is under construction right adjacent to the village in Telaitaand.
. . . . . .
Sister Anna and Ajita were also a part of the Commission team. The team had reached Jadugoda under the leadership of reporter (Ms.) Vaasavi.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 03 April 2007 )
About Dayamani Barla

“Tribals are becoming a minority in their own state!”
Jharkhand, a natural resource, mineral -rich region is sadly,
also ‘rich’ in the ways and kinds of exploitation against tribal
societies that live in these regions. Dayamani Barla’s is an inspiring story of a tribal woman who decided to stand up and campaign for issues that continue to erase, erode and impoverish tribal societies in Jharkhand in the name of development.

Dayamani, educated at the Ranchi University, has been writing articles in Hindi in regular newspapers and magazines like Prabhat Khabhar for the last ten years. Her writings powerfully articulate the exploitation faced by tribal communities, especially women. She strongly believes that by taking the voices of the tribal communities to the common public on issues of tribal women’s empowerment, health, local self-governance and on Government’s Tribal policies, common people can be made aware of the real situations on the ground and thus participate and influence development policies in the right direction.

She has been a powerful campaigner working shoulder-to-shoulder with the community on different issues ranging from eviction of tribals due to the Koel Karo Project, hazards of Uranium mining to forced prostitution of tribal women.

A recipient of the Counter Media Award for better rural journalism(2000) and the National Foundation for India Fellowship (2004), Dayamani runs a local tea-shop for a regular living which she claims is also one of the best places to listen to the ‘voices of the people’!

Facts you should know about uranium mining and milling
http://www.jadugoda.net/htm/FAQ.html