Exxon’s campaign to spread doubt on the science of climate change
Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty
Collaborating with the Bush-Cheney White House, Exxon turned ordinary scientific uncertainties into weapons of mass confusion. Inside Climate News, David Hasemyer and John H. Cushman Jr. 23 Oct 15 As he wrapped up nine years as the federal government’s chief scientist for global warming research, Michael MacCracken lashed out at ExxonMobil for opposing the advance of climate science.
His own great-grandfather, he told the Exxon board, had been John D. Rockefeller’s legal counsel a century earlier. “What I rather imagine he would say is that you are on the wrong side of history, and you need to find a way to change your position,” he wrote.
Addressed to chairman Lee Raymond on the letterhead of the United States Global Change Research Program, his September 2002 letter was not just forceful, but unusually personal.
No wonder: in the opening days of the oil-friendly Bush-Cheney administration, Exxon’s chief lobbyist had written the new head of the White House environmental council demanding that MacCracken be fired for “political and scientific bias.”
Exxon was also attacking other officials in the U.S. government and at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), MacCracken wrote, interfering with their work behind the scenes and distorting it in public.
Exxon wanted scientists who disputed the mainstream science on climate change to oversee Washington’s work with the IPCC, the authoritative body that defines the scientific consensus on global warming, documents written by an Exxon lobbyist and one of its scientists show. The company persuaded the White House to block the reappointment of the IPCC chairman, a World Bank scientist. Exxon’s top climate researcher, Brian Flannery, was pushing the White House for a wholesale revision of federal climate science. The company wanted a new strategy to focus on the uncertainties.
“To call ExxonMobil’s position out of the mainstream is thus a gross understatement,” MacCracken wrote. “To be in opposition to the key scientific findings is rather appalling for such an established and scientific organization.”
MacCracken had a long history of collaboration with Exxon researchers. He knew that during the 1970s and 1980s, well before the general public understood the risks of global warming, the company’s researchers had worked at the cutting edge of climate change science. He had edited and even co-authored some of their reports. So he found it galling that Exxon was now leading a concerted effort to sow confusion about fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect.
Exxon had turned a colleague into its enemy.
It was a vivid example of Exxon’s undermining of mainstream science and embrace of denial and misinformation, which became most pronounced after President George W. Bush took office. The campaign climaxed when Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. Taking the U.S. out of the international climate change treaty was Exxon’s key goal, and the reason for its persistent emphasis on the uncertainty of climate science.
This in-depth series by InsideClimate News has explored Exxon’s early engagement with climate research more than 35 years ago – and its subsequent use of scientific uncertainty as a shield against forceful action on global warming. The series is based on Exxon documents, interviews, and other evidence from an eight-month investigation………. http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty
Touting the nuclear industry to South Carolina’s students, calling it ‘renewable’!
Engineers seek to educate about role of nuclear energy, Technican, North Carolina, October 22, 2015 Alex Kanora, Correspondent
Participating in the National Nuclear Science Week for the fifth time, NC State’s nuclear engineers are spending this week educating fellow students about the everyday presence of nuclear science, from electricity to textiles.
The primary goal of National Nuclear Science Week is to demystify what it means to study nuclear engineering and celebrate its role in society, according to Lisa Marshall, director of Outreach, Retention and Engagement for the department of nuclear engineering. ……..
Tuesday evening at Talley Student Union, nuclear engineering students showed “Pandora’s Promise,” a documentary that explains misconceptions and why skeptics were turned into believers in nuclear power. …..“Many people think of nuclear science as a weapons technology, which in turn keeps people from believing that nuclear energy is a great source of renewable energy,” Marshall said. …… http://www.technicianonline.com/news/article_b2d156e8-7873-11e5-8076-5ff13e669dad.html
Promotion of nuclear industry by IAEA – pushing nuclear education
IAEA to boost nuclear education in Europe and Asia http://www.energylivenews.com/2015/10/19/iaea-to-boost-nuclear-education-in-europe-and-asia/ An agreement has been signed by 12 universities to improve regional co-operation in transferring nuclear knowledge.
It aims to bring together universities from six countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, including Azerbaijan, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
It is the fifth regional network launched by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
It aims to collaborate in nuclear education programmes and nuclear industry-oriented training centres.
Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA Deputy Director General, said: “This translates into a rising demand for nuclear educational and training programmes to meet a continued necessity for highly qualified nuclear professionals.”
The IAEA recently inspected the safety of a Japanese nuclear plant.
Radiation and cancer: to USA’s NRC it’s PR not science, that counts
Instead of treating cancer as a scientific issue, the nuclear industry treats it as a PR challenge. Frequent attempts are made to trivialize the dangers of radiation. Often this involves the Radiation- Is-Everywhere tactic complete with ludicrous examples (“It’s just like eating a banana,” or “It’s just like flying to Denver”). They like to show how little radiation is in an average X-ray but they are careful not to mention that radioactive exposure is cumulative: every dose adds.
The dirty little secret of the nuclear industry is that all NPP regularly discharge radiation into the environment. Nuclear power plants cannot operate without these discharges, and the NRC sets standards for what is allowable.
The push by the nuclear industry to block cancer research demonstrates their true colors.
NRC Blocks Cancer Study Near San Onofre and other Nuclear Power Plants http://voiceofoc.org/2015/10/nrc-blocks-cancer-study-near-san-onofre-and-other-nuclear-power-plants/
By Roger Johnson October 14, 2015 Do the regular radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants (NPP) increase the risk of cancer? No one knows for sure whether living near a NPP can cause cancer, but on Sept. 8 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) terminated a study designed to find out. It would have been carried out by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences which spent 5 years planning the study.
One of the six locations chosen for study was our own San Onofre. The medical records of everyone living within 31 miles of San Onofre (a circle from Huntington Beach around to Solana Beach) would have been part of the study. The research proposal is entitled Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities.
The NRC logo is “Protecting People and the Environment” but many wonder if it should read “Protecting the Nuclear 
Industry and Its Profits.”
The NRC said it could not afford the $8 million, but no one swallows this since the NRC has an annual budget of over $1 billion (90 percent of which comes from the industry it is supposed to be regulating).
The NRC also said that it already knows the answer: low-level radiation coming from NPP is harmless. It continues to cite a now thoroughly discredited study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which examined this issue a quarter of a century ago and failed to find cancer streaks. The nuclear industry prefers this study because it likes the results.
We now know that the NCI study failed because it studied only cancer deaths, not incidence, and it studied only where people died, not where they lived or worked. It also averaged people living very near a NPP with those who lived far away. Also worrisome are recent studies in Europe which discovered that children who live near a NPP double their risk of cancer. The NAS is well-aware of this and designed part of the study to focus on children.
Instead of treating cancer as a scientific issue, the nuclear industry treats it as a PR challenge. Continue reading
Nuclear lobby keen to ‘educate’ public
Nuclear leaders say education key to industry’s future, Pittsburgh Business Times, A decline in nuclear power has been ongoing in the United States. There are 99 nuclear reactors in operation in 30 states, but the industry’s growth has stalled significantly. In 2013, four reactors went out of service, and another was shut down in December 2014. Two nuclear reactor licenses were approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2012, which was a bright point for the industry. But those were the first nuclear licenses approved since 1978………
Dr Lawrence Lindsey spoke during a conference of nuclear power industry leaders gathered Wednesday at the Westin Convention Center in downtown Pittsburgh. Called “Nuclear Going Forward” and underwritten by the advocacy group Nuclear Matters, the power brokers were there to discuss the industry’s future…….
“This is the time we need to start making decisions and start providing some certainty for the industry………
it’s a matter of extolling the virtues of nuclear — and staying course………
USA nuclear fans trivialise effects of nuclear bombing
Photos of what the Manhattan Project’s plutonium bomb did to human beings at Nagasaki prove the point. There is radioactive blowback in the fact that the thousands of tons of plutonium created since 1945 is so dangerously hot and long-lived that, like the underworld itself, nobody knows how to handle it at all — except maybe to trivialize it.
Hoping perhaps to show that the bomb from hell can be transformed from a vengeful, self-destructive, nightmare demon, into a benign, peace-loving, fairy-tale prince, nuclear propagandists and their friends in Congress are establishing nuclear war theme parks — without the taint of mass destruction — at former bomb factories and nuclear weapons launch pads all across the country: Continue reading
Don’t fall for nuclear industry propaganda about radiation “hormesis” !
Cancer, Coverups and Contamination: The Real Cost of Nuclear Energy 27th September 2015 Andreas Toupadakis Ph.D Contributing Writer for Wake Up World “…….many nuclear industry advocates actually maintain that low-dose nuclear radiation is in fact beneficial to human health. Their theory, known as the “Hormesis Effect”, is deliberate industry propaganda. The human body perceives radiation as a threat to its existence, which results in an intense immune response. The short term result of this immune activity can be a short-term improvement of other existing ailments, however the immune system cannot work permanently in such a state of stress, and as environmental exposure continues, human health inevitably deteriorates. This is also the conclusion of the ECRR which concludes that…
“… hormesis may exist, but if it does exist its long-term effects are likely to be harmful… [When exposed to radiation] immune system surveillance is being potentiated in the short term … [however] the existence of radiation-inducible repair means that the repair systems themselves may be open to attack, also by radiation… If cells were induced into a state of high sensitivity for repair replication, then the cell line would undergo a greater rate of replication throughout the period of stress, and… the consequence of the short-term advantage conferred by hormesis is… accumulated DNA damage caused by high numbers of replication-copying processes.”
Over fifty years ago, questions on radiation and toxicity hazards were raised by at least three groups – the the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP), and the Federal Radiation Council (FRC). Continue reading
International Atomic Energy Agency’s Fukushima Report for the benefit of the nuclear industry
International Atomic Energy Agency’s Fukushima Report puts the interests of the nuclear industry first http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/IAEA-Fukushima-Daiichi-accident-report/blog/54198/?__surl__=Ig26R&__ots__=1443134068370&__step__=1 t by Justin McKeating – 24 September, 2015
The report draws conclusions when it should be highlighting major uncertainties and a lack of data surrounding the Fukushima disaster. It downplays the ongoing environmental and health effects of the disaster and misrepresents the current radiological crisis in the Fukushima region.
It’s clear that the IAEA is putting the interests of the nuclear industry before those of the disaster’s many victims. Its report does not accurately reflect the utter failure of the nuclear industry, and most nuclear regulators globally, to learn and implement the lessons of the Fukushima disaster. Not only that, it glosses over the seriously flawed nature of nuclear safety regulation in Japan right now.
And so Greenpeace Japan, together with Japanese civil society organisations, has sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano, challenging the conclusions of the IAEA’s Fukushima report as inadequate and flawed.
The IAEA says no discernible health consequences are expected as a result of the Fukushima disaster. This, while it admits uncertainties about both radiation exposure and its long-term effects. The recently released IAEA Fukushima Daiichi Accident Report on Japan’s on-going nuclear disaster in the wake of the 2011 triple reactor core meltdowns and catastrophic containment building failure reads more like nuclear industry propaganda than the so-called authoritative and balanced scientific assessment the agency attempts to claim it is.The truth is that nobody knows how much radiation citizens were exposed to in the immediate days following the disaster. If the IAEA can’t give accurate figures about radiation exposure, how can it say there won’t be any consequences? This is political spin and PR, not science.
Not only that, but the report supports the Japanese government’s agenda to make it appear that things can return to normal after a nuclear disaster.
Why else would the IAEA seek to justify Japanese government policy of lifting evacuation orders in increasingly contaminated areas in Fukushima? This strips returning evacuees of much needed and deserved compensation and may force many to return to areas where radiation levels remain dangerously high.
This is all part of the propaganda push to overcome huge public opposition in Japan to restarting Japan’s 42 shutdown nuclear reactors. It’s about normalising the Fukushima disaster. There is nothing normal about the exposure rates that former Fukushima citizens are being asked to return to.
Only a truly independent international commission that can investigate the causes, consequences, and implications of the accident can provide the Japanese people and the wider world with the unbiased information and accountability they need.
The nuclear industry will continue putting profit before people and safety – that’s what it does. But the IAEA should begin protecting people from the nuclear industry, not acting as its PR company. Justice demands it.
Nuclear propaganda film “Pandora’s Promise” scrutinised again
The film’s claim that nuclear is cheaper than energy from clean, renewable sources is completely false.
The film minimizes the question of what to do with high-level nuclear waste.
The very reasons not to support nuclear power are ignored by the film. The risks, economic realities, waste disposal problems, regulatory issues, and environmental and health impacts from the complete nuclear fuel chain are not addressed in “Pandora’s Promise.” Anyone who is interested is these issues should continue to ask questions and seek answers outside industry propaganda.
Don’t believe the pro nuclear hype, http://www.moabsunnews.com/opinion/article_c24fc8cc-62d2-11e5-8359-e3fcae67ba87.html?mode=story— Sarah Fields, Director, Uranium Watch,
24 Sept 15 On Thursday, September 24, the Grand County Library and Utah Film Society will be showing the film, 
“Pandora’s Promise,” at Star Hall, starting at 7 p.m. The film is a one-sided and factually challenged look at nuclear power as an answer to climate change. The film’s premise is that nuclear power will provide clean energy and help developing countries end poverty. This claim is presented in interviews with several former opponents of nuclear power who have had a change of heart, and with some nuclear scientists.There were no interviews with citizens, environmentalists, legal experts, or scientists who are currently involved with the many serious and complex issues related to the production of nuclear power in the U.S.
The film neglects to discuss the environmental impacts of the whole nuclear fuel chain, from uranium mining and milling to the disposal and long-term care of low- and high-level nuclear waste. As we know here in southeast Utah, uranium mining and milling is not carbon-free and impacts our land, air, water and public health. There are hundreds of abandoned uranium mines in Utah and nearby states that have yet to be remediated. Hundreds of uranium mine and mill workers died or continue to suffer severe health impacts from the production of uranium.
The film’s claim that nuclear is cheaper than energy from clean, renewable sources is completely false. Nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars to construct, taking 10 years or longer to license and bring online. Reactors under construction in the U.S. have construction delays and serious cost overruns, which are passed onto the ratepayers. The cost of reactors keeps going up and the cost of renewables keeps going down.
The film minimizes the question of what to do with high-level nuclear waste. For decades, that problem has been pushed back for future generations to deal with. The type of spent fuel casket that the proposed Yucca Mountain disposal site was designed for is no longer being developed. There is no approved casket for the storage of high-burn up fuel — the fuel used at most reactors today. The government and industry has no long-term solution for high-level nuclear waste, except for indefinite storage at reactor sites. If Yucca Mountain were approved, much of the spent fuel would be transported through Utah, including Grand County.
The proposed reactor near Green River is an example the realities of nuclear power development. The Blue Castle Project would require about 87 million gallons of water per day in a time of drought and reduced runoff. It would impact the recovery program for threatened and endangered fish species in the Green River. Thus far, the proponent of the reactor, Blue Castle Holdings, has only raised $19 million. It will take from $50 to $100 million to obtain an Early Site Permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and many millions more to obtain a construction and operation license. It will take billions to construct the reactor. Thus far, no utility has joined this project, so there is no place for the electricity to go and no outside funding.
The very reasons not to support nuclear power are ignored by the film. The risks, economic realities, waste disposal problems, regulatory issues, and environmental and health impacts from the complete nuclear fuel chain are not addressed in “Pandora’s Promise.” Anyone who is interested is these issues should continue to ask questions and seek answers outside industry propaganda.
Fisherman debunks radiation as cause of giant woffish
The Guy Who Caught the Internet’s Favorite Giant Fish Is Bummed No One Gets It, Motherboard by EMIKO JOZUKA September 18, 2015 Earlier this week, an odd-looking gargantuan fish from Japan became a minor celebrity on Twitter. But the tide soon turned as curious reactions gave way to harmful rumors that its strange appearance is the result of the effects of radiationfrom the Fukushima disaster.
The fish, however, was no radioactive specimen. It was a Bering wolffish (Anarhichas orientalis)—a species found off the coast of Hokkaido, the northernmost island of Japan. It also just happens to look like a cross between a grumpy grandpa and a monster.
When rumors broke of the fish’s supposed contamination, no one was more disappointed than the man who captured the creature: Hiroshi Hirasaka, a reporter and researcher who “lives life in pursuit of odd-looking creatures.”
“The wolffish I caught was given write-ups on the internet as ‘monster as a result of nuclear accident,’” Hiroshi Hirasaka, the man who caught the fish, told me. Hirasaka initially tweeted the photo because he was proud of his catch, but he soon became devastated by the rapid-fire spread of false internet buzz around the fish.
“That fish has been in [Hokkaido] for a long time, so it’s not feasible for it to be affected by radiation. It’s rude to the fish to say that, and it’s not cool to blame everything on radiation,” Hirasaka said. “Creatures only become big in the world of science fiction, and we’re not living in the world of Hulk or Godzilla.”………
“I find slightly odd, grotesque or scary fish interesting,” Hirasaka told me. “There will always be other writers who report on the beautiful creatures of this world, but I want other people to understand the allure of more ugly specimens.”
As for the internet rumour—he tried debunking it on Twitter, but admitted that the misunderstanding was probably still developing out of his sight and control.
“People in Japan are used to seeing that fish in aquariums, but I guess other people don’t know it. I’m not sure if it was a joke or not, but I was sad to think that they thought it was like that because of nuclear radiation,” said Hirasaka. “I just want them to have the correct information.” http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fish-that-was-wrongly-accused-of-being-affected-by-radiation
Timothy Mousseau dismisses radiation as cause of giant wolffish
NO, THIS WOLFFISH IS NOT A FUKUSHIMA RADIATION MUTANT,As for the idea of giant, mutant Fukushima fish … there is no scientific evidence to support claims that fallout from the Fukushima disaster has, or will, cause this to happen. Even right after the disaster, a swim in nearby waters would have dosed you with just 0.03% of the daily radiation an average Japanese resident receives. And much of that fallout has disappeared because of natural decomposition and decay.
Besides, even in the extremely unlikely event that radiation was the culprit here, we would actually expect to see smaller, not larger, fish. “Very, very few mutations lead to extra-large size,” explains University of South Carolina radiation specialist Dr Timothy Mousseau. “[Instead], they grow less efficiently, they’re less capable of catching food and they tend to not live as long.
All that said, this catch is still an impressive one. Wolffish (family Anarhichadidae) average about three feet in length (110 cm), but can get bigger. What Hirasaka has landed is a very old and very healthy specimen. “If you look hard and long enough there’s always a few that manage to survive long enough to achieve these large sizes,” says Mousseau. http://www.earthtouchnews.com/wtf/mutants-and-freaks/no-this-wolffish-is-not-a-fukushima-radiation-mutant
‘Climate Change Fix” chosen as 2015 theme by World Nuclear Association
Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs
Australia’s nuclear propagandist Ben Heard is over in London, attending the World Nuclear Association’s Symposium. Heard has been advising them on how to spin the pro nuclear. message to the public.
It seems that the big message of the nuclear lobby is that lie that “Nuclear can solve climate change”
World Nuclear Association urges industry growth to 25%, WNA 10 September 2015 The global nuclear industry should aim to achieve a 25% share of world electricity production by 2050, Agneta Rising, director general of the World Nuclear Association said today. To do that it will need to add 1000 gigawatts of new generation capacity.
In her opening remarks to delegates at the association’s annual Symposium, being held in London this week, Rising said there are political and regulatory barriers to overcome in achieving this target, and the industry could find more ways to reduce its own costs. “But we have a goal,” she said.
That goal is the focus of the association’s new Harmony initiative. To achieve it, Rising stressed the industry was capable of adding 50 GWe of capacity in 2015-2020, 125 GWe in 2020-2025 and 825 GWe in 2025-2050……
To achieve the 1000 GWe target, the World Nuclear Association has outlined three objectives in its Harmony initiative – a level playing field for nuclear among sources of electricity generation, a harmonised regulatory process, and an effective safety paradigm. To achieve them, the industry must manage the challenges with deregulated markets and nuclear energy taxes, high capital investments, grid system costs and subsidies for alternative sources of electricity. It must also seek to gain recognition for nuclear power for its low-carbon generation.……….. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WNN-World-Nuclear-Association-urges-industry-growth-to-25-10091501.html
Scrutinising Japan’s government PR about The Reopening Of Nahara Fukushima
The Reopening Of Nahara Fukushima, What The Press Failed To Mention, Simply Info September 9th, 2015 The press has widely reported the reopening of Nahara as the government uses it as a PR tool. Much of the reporting focused on issues such as the lack of stores, services or schools. This is a distraction from the very real pressing concern of the radiation levels and uncertain status of the town’s decontamination efforts.
Nahara has been plagued with problems and high radiation levels yet the government has characterized the town as being “safe”. Nahara was the site of Fukushima Daiichi debris findings in 2013. ……..
Asahi Shimbun discovered illegal practices were being used in the decontamination work being done in Nahara in 2013. Nahara currently houses large stockpiles of radioactive soil and debris as seen in this photo. The town is part of the long term consolidated storage plan where contaminated soil from around Japan is being collected and stored near Fukushima Daiichi.
Nahara’s city water supply was found to have 18,700 bq/kg of cesium in the soil in the bottom of the reservoir. In May of 2014 Nahara officials demanded that the central government decontaminate Nahara to pre-disaster levels. Nothing further was reported on this to show any response to these requests………
Recent soil sampling done by Iwaki Radiation Measuring Center with the help of a former Fukushima Daiichi worker who collected the samples found alarmingly high radiation.
Soil samples in Nahara were found as high as:
52500 bq/kg cesium 137 & 134 combined
34790 bq/kg cesium 137 & 134 combined
26480 bq/kg cesium 137 & 134 combined……..http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=15023
South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission – conflict of interest revealed.
Submission To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal
Commission Regarding Issues Papers 1 and 4 byYurij Poetzl http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/Yuri-Poetzl-24-07-2015.pdf
I’m a private citizen and have no vested interest in the nuclear industry; however the nuclear industry does direct ly impact me, my family and my friends As a member of the public I wish to give evidence and express my concerns in regard to the issues being examined by the Royal Commission.It is valid to examine economics and risks relating to the nuclear industry; however is the Royal Commission a fair and objective examination of the Nuclear Cycle? It has been disclosed that Kevin Scarce Is a shareholder in the Rio Tinto Group,who own and operate 
uranium mines in Australia and internationally. ls this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner? It is of great concern that the Royal Commissioner has selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the R.C’s Advisory Committee (the single exception being Professor lan Lowe). See Appendix 1.
It also seems remiss that there isn’t any health or medical professionals engaged in the R.C’s Expert Advisory Committee or Key Commission staff. It’s well documented that by-products of the nuclear industry can have adverse effects on the health of the global community for many future generations. The omission of health experts makes me question whether the R.C is truly considering what is in my and the general public’s best interest.
The Public Health Association of Australia have made their position clear in regard to the R.C and the Nuclear Industry, see http :1 /www .phaa. net. au/ documents/item/51 0 or http://www .phaa.net.au/documents/item/264 The Royal Commission could prove to be pivotal in South Australia’s future having significant and far reaching consequences, affecting many future generations; however, was the process leading toward the establishment the Royal Commission flawed?
The S.A. public (and wider global communit y) deserve a balanced and unbiased assessment of the issues raised Appendix 2. Contains questions regarding issues papers 1 and 4 Yours sincerely Yurij Poetzl
Appendix. 1 4 of the 5 Royal Commissions Expert Advisory Committee appear to be pro nuclear. They are Professor Barry Brook, Dr Timothy Stone, John Carlson AM and Dr Leanna Read. Below is a brief summary oftheir involvement in the nuclear industry Professor Barry Brook is an active advocate of the Nuclear Industry. The self described”Promethean Environmentalist” is openly critical of people who have concerns regarding the Industry. Professor Brook is the author of, or contributor to several pro nuclear publications such as; Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation, Australia’s nuclear options and, An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy. To name a few.
Dr Timothy Stone is an advocate for nuclear power generation and nuclear industrial expansion in Australia. In the UK Dr Stone has held the position of Expert Chair ofthe Office for Nuclear Development and he is currently on the board of Horizon Nuclear Power as non-executive Director John Carlson AM has been Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. In part 6 of the introduction to Mr Carlson’s paper “Nuclear power for Australia”- an outline of the key issues he claims “Nuclear has a major advantage over other energy sources”. Later in the same document Mr Carlson states “Currently both major parties say that nuclear power is “offlimits”. While this is disappointing, at least it ensures neither side is making statements tlhat will later be embarrassing to retract” It is clear that Mr Carlson is pro nuclear providing the appropriate safeguards are met
Dr Leanna Read has publicly stated that she “has an open mind” regarding the Nuclear Industry. Dr Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy ofTechnological Sciences and Engineering, which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014. This seems to contradict Dr Read’s claims of impartiality toward the nuclear industry Given the information in Appendix 1, can the Royal Commission be considered truly independent?
Appendix 2
- Question: 1. Even with best practice and best intentions, industrial accidents happen. What infrastructure is currently in place, should a truck loaded with uranium oxide be involved in an accident in the Metropolitan area and whilst doing so, have a breach of its load or catch fire?
- Question: 2. Is it possible to insure against a nuclear mishap and how is Public Liability insurance affected in an accident scenario?
- Question: 3.Many environmentalists believe that The Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 al lows wide ranging exemptions from key environmental laws such as the SA Environmental Protection Act 1993, Freedom of information Act 1991 and the Natural Resources Act 2004 critical water resources and Great Artesian Basin. Is this true?
- Question: 4. If the answer to question 3 is true, please explain how these exemptions are in the public interest?
- Question: 5.1s it possible that similar exemptions will be extended to waste dumps, uranium enrichment operations or nuclear power stations?
- Question: 6. Recent revelations by the EPA {Environmental Protection Agency) reveal widespread and irreversible groundwater contamination by industrial practices in several of Adelaide’s suburbs. Wouldn’t it be prudent for the Commissions terms of reference to contain a review of current uranium mining and transport practices?
- Question: 7. Would it be sensible to hold a review of the current condition of waterways and aquifers affected by mining practices before an expansion of SA’s nuclear industry commences?
- Question: 8. Since the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam a few years ago, has the SA public been receiving fair and balanced media coverage on the nuclear Industry, particularly in printed media?
- Question: 9. What has been the ratio of Pro/Con nuclear industry stories and editorials in the Advertiser Newspaper since 201 0?
- Question: 10. What influence has this ratio had on the general public’s current view towards the nuclear industry?
- Question: 11. Will the commission call on medical and health specialists to give their perspectives on the nuclear industry and its impact on workers within the industry and the wider community?
- Question: 12. Can Nuclear Energy really be defined as a low carbon emission energy source when millions of litres of Diesel are consumed in the Nuclear Cycle annually, particularly in the mining and transport of uranium oxide?
- Question: 13. Uranium waste products can take hundreds of thousands of years to halve their level of toxicity. Pyramids are amongst the oldest surviving manmade structures and are no more than 5000 years old. Therefore what assurances are there, that nuclear waste can be safely stored over much longer periods oftime?
- Question 14.1f South Australia is perceived to be a nuclear waste site by the global community, what will the impact be on Tourism, Real Estate, Food, Wine and manufacturing industries be?
- Question 15.Highly toxic Radon gas is released by the mining activities at Roxby downs and apparently can be detected in Antarctica. This gas must pass through Adelaide to get there. What is the effect of Radon gas to workers in the mines and what impact does it have on the wider community?
- Question: 16. What is the volume of airborne radioactive dust released into atmosphere by mining and storage of tailings exposed to the wind?
- Question: 17.What impact does radioactive dust released by mining practices, have on the Australian public, fauna and flora?
- Question: 18.Presumably nuclear waste will be transported from Port Adelaide to its storage destination. What would be the outcome, in the advent of an accident, or fire to the transport within the M etropolitan area?
- Question: 19. 33.6 percent of Australian uranium is exported to North America. The US military has depleted uranium coated ammunitions and armaments, such as bullets and tank shielding. There have been reports claiming an alarming rise of birth defects to children of returned US soldiers and civilians occupying militarised zones. These reports claim the birth defects can be attributed to use of depleted uranium coated ordnance. What checks are in place to guarantee no Australian uranium or its by-products is used to coat US military
- Question: 20. Has uranium coated ordinance or tank shielding been used by the United States Army in war games in central Australia?
- Question: 21. Prior to his selection as “Chair of the Royal Commission” Kevin Scarce had aligned himself with CEDA (the Committee for Economic Development In Australia). CEDA’s Policy Perspectives of Nov 2011 clearly supports and promotes the growth of South Australia’s nuclear industry. Is this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner?
- Question: 22.There are cl ips on You T ube(see Aug 12th 2014) where Kevin Scarce confirms his association with CEDA, using terms like “we were able to get our draft report considered by government. ” Given his connection with CEDA and their pro nuclear stance, is Kevin Scarce truly impartial and unbiased in regard to South Australia’s nuclear issues?
- In Summary To be considered an effective, balanced, honest and legitimate assessment of SA’s role in the nuclear cycle, the Royal Commission needs to assess and answer many more tough questions than the ones listed above. Kind regards Yu.rij Poetzl Adelaide South Australia
South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission gets some crummy Submissions
South Australia is having a Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, with the goal of making that State the world’s nuclear toilet, and guinea pig for new experimental nukes. They invited submissions (published at http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions.) Of course nuclear companies are sending them in. But the rules are that the corporate submissions don’t have to be published. So the nuclear lobby has to rely mainly on non-corporate enthusiasts for published submissions.
And boy – do some of them put in crummy submissions.
I was particularly taken with this one, and the author’s idea that falls from solar paneled roofs are a bigger health problem than Fukushima radiation.
Geoff Russell, Extract from Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission “……The Royal Commission is uniquely placed to learn from the past, but it will need to deal with the drivers of nuclear fear in the community. To build confidence in the community, the Commission’s report will need to convince both sides of politics to speak with one voice about the misinformation that drove (and drives) the Fukushima evacuation.
Appeasement, in the form of more and more levels of safeguards and protocols to attempt to say that “it can’t happen here” isn’t the answer. There will always be accidents despite every effort to avoid them. Planes still crash, but people understand the relative risks and board them regardless of personal fear.
They understand that fear is their personal problem and not a function of the objective facts. So it’s time to put nuclear accidents into perspective and stop treating them as something fundamentally different.
The fear and irrationality at Fukushima saw people die to avoid a trivial risk. Governments are supposed to protect people from nutters, not act on their behalf.
All energy sources have risks and in a rational world they’d be compared according to proper measures of suffering and disability; the simple trigger sequence logic (“nuclear -> cancer -> end of civilisation”) of decades past shouldn’t be allowed to influence decision making in 2015.
In Australia in 2010-11 there were 7730 Worker’s45 Compensation claims for serious injury resulting from falls from a height. How many were associated with rooftop solar panels? As far as I can see, nobody is even counting, but a million solar rooftops means more people on ladders; many of them amateurs. This is real danger, the kind that can put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. A proper comparison of nuclear risks with those of other energy sources will measure and include such risks along with the considerable risks associated with not avoiding continued climate destabilisation because we acted too slowly. We need safe clean energy and climate scientists say we need it fast. The Royal Commission will need to break with past traditions and confront nuclear fear head on and call it for what it is.”
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (181)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 