Nuclear

Feds exaggerate the “benefit” of Nuclear waste Dump

20 August: A new report into the claimed economic benefits to regional communities of the Federal Government nuclear waste facility has found the government has exaggerated the benefits, and not properly factored in insurance costs and other risks.

“This whole process has been poorly conducted and horribly divisive from day one,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of Conservation SA.
“Knowing how reluctant many people in Kimba and the Flinders Ranges are to having a nuclear waste dump in their backyard, the Federal Government has greatly over-sold the economic benefits to try and buy community support.
“This report is a reality check for a community sick of the spin from the Federal Government,” he said.
Conservation SA commissioned economic think tank The Australia Institute to examine more closely Federal Government’s claims of an economic windfall for the affected communities.
The Down in the Dumps report compared the current Australian National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) plans with similar facilities overseas, and found a raft of exaggerated jobs and economic return claims.  For example, a proposed facility in Canada which is more than one hundred times larger with more functions and features, will cost only half as much to construct and operate.
As the report’s author, Dr Cameron Murray, states: ‘Either the waste facility is orders of magnitude larger than need for Australia’s nuclear waste, or the government has exaggerated the economic returns to the local community of the NRWMF facility’.Read more >>

Don’t Bank on the Bomb!

2018 report Don’t Bank on the Bomb now available!

Maaike Beenes, co-author, writes —

This report, produced by PAX, a member of the Nobel Peace Prize winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons (ICAN) is the only report detailing the global investments by financial institutions in companies producing nuclear weapons.

$525 Billion invested

329 investors made $525 Billion available to nuclear weapon producing companies between January 2014 and October 2017. They assisted with share and bond issuances, owned or managed shares and bonds or outstanding loans or made credit facilities. This is a decrease in the number of investors, but an $81 billion increase in the total amount invested. Find out who invests.

Most investors are from the US, and US$110 billion came from just 3 US financial institutions: Blackrock, Vanguard and Capital Group, all from the United States.

ICAN executive director Beatrice Fihn: “If you have been wondering who benefits from Donald Trump’s threats of nuclear war, this report has that answer. These are the companies that stand to profit from indiscriminate mass murder of civilians. We grow less safe while they cash in on chaos by banking on Armageddon.”

Author of the report Susi Snyder: “The Nuclear Ban Treaty has sparked momentum towards divestment, shown by 10% fewer investors in nuclear weapon producers, and an increase in financial institutions comprehensively prohibiting any investment. Investments are not neutral, these companies should be congratulated for standing on the side of humanity.”

Access the full report hereRead more >>

Senate Enquiry National Rad Waste Facility

Mara Bonacci, the CCSA’s  Nuclear Waste campaigner writes:

On  6 February 2018, the Senate referred an inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia to the Senate Economics Reference Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018.
This is welcome.
Submissions are due by Tuesday 3rd April.
It would be wonderful if you  could write a submission.
The terms of reference can be found here
Some points to consider including are:
  • A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
  • The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
  • The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
  • The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
  • The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.
In addition, I have set up on online submission system that is pre-filled but can be edited.  I encourage as many people as possible to take a few minutes to complete.
It would be great to get as many submissions to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics as possible so collectively we can end this terrible process and get the federal government to finally take a responsible approach to radioactive waste management.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any help with this.
thanks and regards,
Mara Bonacci
Nuclear Waste Campaigner
Usual Hours Monday – Wednesday 10am – 3pm
Conservation Council SA
The Joinery / 111 Franklin Street, Adelaide SA 5000
(08) 8223 5155  mobile: 0422 229 970
Read more >>

REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

A summary of the letter from MAPW to Industry Minister Matt Canavan
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW),                                        23 Feb 18 

 

 REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (NRWMF )

1) The process is very divisive. Repeated, highly damaging processes imposed on previously cohesive communities are causing significant harms.

2) Considerable amounts of persistently misleading information have been and continue to be presented to communities. Incorrect and incomplete information does not result in genuine consent.

3) There is a failure to observe international best practice standards for the highly radioactive long lived intermediate level waste (ILW) management. There is no disposal plan whatsoever for ILW, leaving the problem for many future generations.

REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT

1) There is a lack of demonstrable “Net benefit”. The proposed 40 year-long expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. Independent NEA/OECD economic modelling finds only 10-15% cost recovery of isotope manufacture when there is genuine inclusion of all costs.

2) The expansion will create 40 years of significantly increased production of ILW.

3) ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99. The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply.

4) Again, there is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional ILW generated.

Both processes are unacceptably flawed.

Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW)  urges

  • A halt to the current NRWMF process until such time as world’s best practice is followed. There is sufficient capacity at the Lucas Heights facility, once regulatory approvals are met, to store Low Level Waste (LLW) and Intermediate Level Waste  (ILW) well into the next decade.
Read more >>

Nuclear medicine & the National Dump Site

“As health organisations, we are appalled that access to nuclear medical procedures is being used to justify the proposed nuclear waste dump. Most waste from these procedures break down quickly and can be safely disposed of either on site or locally.”
                     — Dr Bill Williams, Medical Association for the Prevention of War

“Linking the need for a centralized radioactive waste storage facility with the production of isotopes for nuclear medicine is misleading. The production of radioactive isotopes for nuclear medicine comprises a small percentage of the output of research reactors. The majority of the waste that is produced in these facilities occurs regardless of the nuclear medicine isotope production.”
                    — Nuclear Radiologist Dr Peter Karamoskos.

Proponents of a national radioactive waste facility (a repository for lower-level wastes and a co-located store for higher-level wastes) claim or imply that nuclear medicine would be jeopardised if the facility does not proceed. There is no basis to such claims – they amount to dishonest scare-mongering.

Proponents claim that most or all of the waste that the federal government wants to dispose of or store at a national repository/store arises from medicine, specifically the production and use of medical radioisotopes. However, measured by radioactivity, the true figure is just 10-20%. Measured by volume, the figure may be within that range or it may be higher than 20% ? but it takes some creative accounting to justify the claim that most or even all of the waste is medical in origin.

In any case, the fact that some waste is of medical origin doesn’t mean that a national repository/store is the best way to manage the waste.

If the plan for a national repository/store does not proceed, medical waste will continue to be stored at the Lucas Heights reactor site operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and, in much smaller volumes, at hospitals.… Read more >>