Dangers of the Nuclear Industry
Presentation by Peter Milton, former La Trobe MHR, June 2005
Having written about the dangers of the nuclear industry five years ago, it seems most appropriate to take the opportunity to revisit this issue at the present time, for two main reasons. The first is that, after many years of skepticism, the main body of scientists in the world has accepted that a century of atmospheric pollution means that the resultant global warming is a grave danger to human life on this planet. One response to this danger is a clarion call for more nuclear power stations, on the grounds that nuclear energy does not cause pollution. It is my intention now, to provide even more evidence that the production of nuclear energy is both dangerous and is a pollutant.
The second reason is that the United States and Iran recently abrogated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in addition, the US, together with other nations, has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, thus strengthening the argument by countries, such as North Korea, that they have the right to manufacture and test nuclear weapons, as a means of protection against all the nations who possess those weapons. Clearly these decisions, made mainly by the US, have brought the world much closer to a future nuclear war.
Uranium mining is both destructive to the natural environment and to the health of workers in the industry but our uranium has also been used for the illegal production of weapons grade material.
Uranium has been mined in Australia since the 1940's, but as a consequence of the strong protests of anti-nuclear and aboriginal traditional owners over the years, only two main uranium mines are now in operation, namely the Ranger Uranium Mine adjacent to Kakadu National Park, and Roxby Downs in central South Australia.
The Ranger mine is noted for its constant accidental tailings waste being spilt into local creeks feeding into the Kakadu National Park, and Roxby Downs is noted for its degrading effect on nearby unique mound springs, and numerous radioactive spills and tailings leaks. Roxby Downs also has, potentially, the distinction of becoming the largest copper-uranium mine in the world. Both mines inevitably store radioactive wastes on their sites and, when they eventually run out of deposits, their sites will be radioactive for thousands of years.
Uranium mining and milling can also be a grave risk to mine workers. Unfortunately, the necessary protection from noxious gases and dust, are not always undertaken by the workers, making them susceptible to cancer and other lung diseases.
Australian uranium exports are monitored by the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. This Office regulates the records of inventories and transactions which must be kept to meet bilateral safeguards agreements, as contained in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Safeguard inspections can also be made by the International Atomic Energy Association, but the Director General of the Agency has stated that the inspections are somewhat limited. The main purpose of these safeguards is to ensure, in the case of Australia for example, that none of the Australian uranium can be illegally reprocessed into nuclear weapons grade material. In 1987, Jo Vallentine, Nuclear Disarmament Senator, Norm Sanders, Australian Democrat Senator, and myself revealed in the Federal Parliament, that West German companies with the approval of the European Atomic Energy Community, exchanged American and Australian uranium in a complicated book-keeping exercise known as "flag swapping". This led to our uranium being enriched to help in the production of the present huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, the majority of which are held by the USA, Britain, France, China, and Russia. It is a fact that Australian uranium cannot be specifically identified once it is in the system and, by using the "flag swapping" process, it is easy to deliberately divert the material.
With BHP Billiton having now gained control of Western Mining Corporation's Roxby Downs site, we can be certain that they will be aiming to sell uranium to China, and to increase our uranium exports to Japan, South Korea, Europe and North America. This is apart from both uranium and the technical secrets of nuclear weapons construction being sold by unscrupulous operatives to overseas customers, such as Iran and North Korea. All these facts are surely sufficient evidence to all Australians that exporting uranium is a danger both to the producers and the users.
The production of electricity from nuclear energy is a life threatening operation and is certainly not economic, as claimed by the industry.
At the present time there are over 400 nuclear power stations in operation around the world and that number has not grown for 5 years because, after the accidents at Three Mile Island (USA), Sellafield (UK), and Chernobyl (Ukraine), nuclear power has proved an unattractive operation in the USA and Western Europe. The Chernobyl disaster, in particular, caused deaths and severe illnesses to thousands of the families of workers and nearby residents, as a result of genetic abnormalities which will continue into the future. There have also been hundreds of other minor accidents in nuclear power stations, which are rarely reported in the media. Only several weeks ago, the Prime Minister, John Howard, is reported as having said, in relation to nuclear energy, "I think there should be a debate." (The Age, 10/6). But there has been a continuing debate about nuclear energy for the past 30 years, in the Federal Parliament, in the ALP, and at public meetings by many anti-nuclear activists and organisations.
Australia does not have a nuclear power station but it does have an operating nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, south of Sydney. This reactor will cease operation in early 2006 and a new reactor is being built, which the Federal Government is hoping to be able to licence to operate when the old reactor becomes obsolete. It is claimed that the new reactor is essential to produce medical isotopes, but this is untrue as medical isotopes can be created with an electrical cyclotron. Suspicions abound that the reactor is to be used to research methods of producing uranium enrichment. In 2004, Greenpeace revealed that such research is presently being undertaken at the Lucas Heights site by a secretive company, named Silex.
The proponents of nuclear power claim that nuclear energy is cheaper to produce than the energy provided by fossil fuel sources, and safer because there is no pollution; both claims are patently false. These claims have been made for the past two decades and although they have been shown to be false, their proponents keep repeating their claims, presumably on the basis that if they repeat them long enough, Australians will believe them. First of all, let us deal with the question of cost. In general, nuclear energy costs almost twice as much to produce as energy produced from coal power or wind power. In addition, the costs of nuclear energy production does not include the subsidies provided by various government sources, in particular, the costs of disposing of the wastes of the industry. The second claim is that nuclear energy is safer because it does not pollute the atmosphere. This claim may have some truth, although radon gases are emitted during the mining of uranium, and serious pollution to the atmosphere occurs if there is an uncontrolled explosion of atomic power, as occurred at Chernobyl. However, what is not admitted is that there is a severe pollution of the surface of the earth with radioactive material, which, in respect of high-level waste, will last for some thousands of years. It is accordingly now necessary to consider, in more detail, the problem of nuclear wastes.
No satisfactory safe method of the disposal of nuclear wastes has yet been developed as will be indicated but, first, it is necessary to give a definition of nuclear wastes. Such wastes come in many forms, but are usually classified into low level waste (LLW), intermediate level waste (ILW), and high level waste (HLW), depending on the concentration and quantity of the radio-activity present. HLW contains a high concentration of radio-activity and comprises spent fuel rods and materials associated with the fuel, which can take thousands of years before it decays to a level which is safe for human beings. LLW includes all the waste from uranium mining and some of the wastes from other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. This waste can also become concentrated in a biological way and thus become unsafe for humans. A specific example of this was when contaminated water was released from the Ranger Uranium Mine into the Magela Creek and shellfish in the creek were subsequently eaten by local aboriginal people who fell sick.
When a nuclear power plant is decommissioned , the site becomes completely unsafe for human habitation. By the year 2015, it is estimated that 250, 000 tonnes of spent fuel and HLW will have accumulated, although military sites and nuclear submarines, some of which have been sunk in the ocean as a method of decommissioning, were not included in the estimate.
The Australian Government has attempted to find a place to deposit the nuclear waste produced in Australia, mainly arising from the Lucas Heights reactor, without success. None of the States or Territories will give approval for a radioactive dump in their jurisdiction. One of the places being considered by the Federal Government is a site on an offshore island. Synroc, a synthetic rock which can encapsulate HLW, has not yet been used commercially, and it is suspected that this is because it is an expensive process. Some critics also maintain that there is no proof that synroc rock crystals will remain stable for thousands of years. Vitrification and cementation in steel drums have both been found to be unsafe because the drums have burst open after only several decades of burial. Another method of vitrifying is to convert the HLW into a borosilicate glasslike state, but this material was found by geochemists to disintegrate if, after burial, it came into contact with ground water. Apart from the fact that no safe method for the disposal of nuclear wastes has yet been developed, the cost of disposal has never been factored into the price of electricity produced by nuclear power.
Friends of the Earth have reported that there are around 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. Because of world wide concern that future wars could occur which, inevitably, would lead to the use of these weapons of mass destruction, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was created in 1968, under the auspices of the United Nations. In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Treaty, and Pakistan, India, and Israel have never been parties. All the present Treaty nations have the right, under the Treaty, to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. However, unfortunately, the technology can also be used to develop nuclear weapons, as is being shown by North Korea. The Treaty obligates the signatories to get rid of their existing nuclear weapons, and not to further develop nuclear weapons. In May, an NPT Review Conference took place at the United Nations, and both the US and Iran refused to agree to the existing clauses of the NPT. This stance by the US Bush administration, in particular, could mean the beginning of the disintegration of the NPT, a most serious position for world peace. Another important treaty is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This treaty, which would outlaw underground testing of nuclear weapons, is strongly supported by Australia, which introduced the treaty to the United Nations in 1996 where it was endorsed. However, a number of countries, including the US, China, Pakistan and India, have refused to ratify the CTBT which, together with the NPT, means that the world is facing a most dangerous future.
The Director of the International Atomic Agency (IAEA), Mohammed El Baradei, whom the US attempted to get IAEA member nations to sack, without success, has said that it is unsustainable for nuclear weapons states to claim a right to hold nuclear weapons in perpetuity, while asking others not to develop them. The US, Russia, UK. France, and China, possess the main depositories of nuclear weapons, with India, Pakistan, and Israel also having smaller depositories. In addition to their stock of nuclear warheads, the US military has developed the use of depleted uranium to enhance the power of their other weapons. These weapons have been used in the war in Iraq, which must inevitably cause life killing radio-activity to affect combatants and non-combatant Iraqis alike.
The former US Defence Secretary, Robert Macnamara, in March of last year, stated on an ABC Radio National Background Briefing program that, "The US have, deployed 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads, each one on average with a destructive capability 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb that killed 80,000 people. And secondly, of the 6,000, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes warning by one man without any consultation, the President. That's insane because it stimulates others, the North Korea's, the Iran's, to try to move towards development of nuclear weapons, which is contrary to their national interest and certainly contrary to ours." This was a frightening statement from a man who knew what he was talking about.
In conclusion it must not be forgotten that atmospheric pollution does not occur solely from coal-fired power stations but also from fuel guzzling cars, jet planes and domestic gas consumption. We must also be aware that a nuclear power plant presents a perfect target for terrorists. It is madness, but nuclear weapons are a fatal attraction for military powers to use in a war which could destroy the human race. It is clear that the dangers of the nuclear industry are so great that we should not be building more nuclear power stations.
Electricity produced by nuclear power is too expensive and no solution has been found to adequately dispose of the nuclear wastes. The cost of building the large number of nuclear power stations necessary to replace coal fired power stations, would amounncrease our Circulation:
Nominate potential subscribers for three fret to many billions of dollars. In addition, as stated by Resources Minister Macfarlane (The Age 17/6), it could take 20-25 years before commercial plants were built in Australia. The astronomic cost of $2 billion per power plant could be put to better economic use if it were used to develop the manufacturing processes required to substantially reduce the pollution caused by fossil fuels, and by promoting renewable energy resources, such as solar power. The Kyoto Protocol was an international agreement, set up to introduce measures to reduce the pollution of our atmosphere but, appallingly, the US and Australia are the only two rich nations which have not become parties to the Protocol. It is estimated that even if the number of nuclear power stations in the world were doubled, they would be unable to get even close to achieving the modest reduction in greenhouse gases, which the Kyoto Protocol is attempting to achieve.
The 21st century solution to our energy problems is to economise on its use, to develop measures to reduce the pollution which coal, oil, and gas consumption is releasing into our atmosphere, and to expand the use of solar. wind and tide power. It would certainly be a disastrous solution to expand the nuclear industry.