Nuclear Waste Dump - who asked you?
Perhaps you don’t remember the referendum about the waste dump – could be because there wasn’t one!
Critical Times asked some questions of Dr. Dennis Matthews, who is the spokesperson on nuclear issues for the S.A. Conservation Council; and David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Foundation.
The activities undertaken by the nuclear industry (eg. uranium mining, nuclear waste dump) – are they election issues? (either State or Federal)
DM: The nuclear waste dump is definitely an issue for SA, and should be a Federal issue, given connection with Lucas Heights (which produces the bulk of radioactive waste). Uranium mining has been a strong Federal issue (eg Jabiluka), but Beverley and Honeymoon are not big issues at present (State or Federal) – if people knew what was happening, then they would be.
DN: Expansion of the nuclear industry is one of the worst forms of globilisation impacting on environment and on social justice.
As human rights are considered universal so too should the right
Why should we be concerned? What’s it going to matter?
DN: There is an extreme expansion of the nuclear industry underway
in SA with full support of one or both Governments: Commissioning
of the Beverely uranium mine, the first acid ISL (In Situ Leach)
uranium mine in the western world, by General Atomics of the USA,
to produce some 1000 tonnes of uranium a year; The Honeymoon acid
ISL uranium mine still being assessed by Senator Hill north-west
of Broken Hill in SA, by Southern Cross Resources of Canada, also
intended to produce some 1000 tonnes of uranium a year; Expansion
of the Roxby Downs uranium mine by WMC with an increase in uranium
production of a further 1000 tonnes of uranium a year, up on current
production levels of some 4500 tonnes a year, planned by early 2002;
and proposals for 3 nuclear dumps in SA: A “National Repository”,
a burial site for radioactive wastes that require isolation for
up to 300 years, being assessed at present by Senator Hill at 3
potential sites near Woomera; The reactors nuclear waste dump for
medium to high level wastes, being pushed by Senator Minchin, who
claims a right to impose this dump on SA by overriding our Parliament
so as to facilitate the proposed new reactor in Sydney; The Pangea
international nuclear dump planned for WA or SA, ignoring that both
State Parliaments have made this plan illegal.
DM: The nuclear industry is part and parcel of the nuclear weapons
industry – there is no doubt that Australian uranium ends up in
nuclear weapons. The nuclear industry is expensive, and heavily
subsidised. (continued p. 2) Lastly, the industy is dangerous – obvious and well known effects of exposure to radiation – just look
at the effects of depleted uranium being discussed at present.
Have South Australians ever been consulted about the nuclear waste dump (or uranium mining for that matter)?
DM: There have been four EIS (Environmental Impact Statements)
DN: Government “consultation” deliberately excludes many of the real issues of uranium mining and the nuclear dumps, for instance: the public Environmental Impact Assessment process (EIS) for a uranium mine does not allow consideration of the nuclear fuel cycle and the impacts of use of our uranium overseas which always leads to a nuclear waste burden on some community; in promoting the national nuclear dump in SA, Senator Minchin misrepresented the real reason and motive for the dump, claiming it was all to do with low level wastes for the States when this is only 3% of the waste material in Australia, with the real reason and agenda to bring all of the medium to high level wastes from the existing Lucas Heights and proposed new Sydney reactors to SA
Isn’t the nuclear industry good for the economy? What about all those jobs at Roxby Downs?
DM: The nuclear industry has been heavily subsidised, including
They say the nuclear industry doesn’t contribute to global warming – wouldn’t that be a good alternative to burning all those fossil
fuels?
DM: In fact, the nuclear industry only exascerbates the problem,
replacing global warming with a radioactive atmosphere and the problem
of nuclear waste. The nuclear industry is not greenhouse-gas neutral
at all, especially in the construction phase. Apart from electricity
generation and transport, Roxby Downs’ mining operations are the
single biggest contributor to greenhouse gas levels in the State.
Is there any difference between Labor & Liberal policies in regards to nuclear issues?
DM: Not a lot, and none over Roxby Downs. Originally, Labor opposed
Beverley and Honeymoon. Liberals support food irradiation, Labor
did not at the time it was debated.
Why does Nick Minchin seem to be pushing so hard for a waste dump in S.A?
DM: The nuclear industry’s main problem is waste disposal. As a
DN: To get a new reactor up in Sydney he must demonstrate a radioactive waste management plan – since Nov 1997 the Federal Government’s only plan has been to sooner or later bring all of the reactor’s wastes to SA. Senator Minchin is trying to temporarily clear the wastes out of Lucas Heights so as to assist him in imposing a new reactor to produce even more nuclear wastes for a further 40 years, waste that remain hazardous for 10s of thousands of years for which there is no scientifically defensible and publicly acceptable solution.
What will it take to stop this / change the current situation? Is it possible?
DN: Change is happening with community pressure onto Governments
Do you feel confident in our future, safety and health if we go down the nuclear path?
DM: No, not at all – the nuclear path is even worse than the fossil
fuel path.
Tags
david noonan, nuclear issues, australian conservation foundation, nuclear waste, uranium mining, lucas heights
