March 5, 2008

* Australia - veterans prepare for compensation fight over 1950s nuclear exposure

November 3, 2007

Australia - lead, follow, or get out of the way

Joanna Gash, the Liberal member for the South Coast seat of Gilmore, carries two petitions on her website: "No nuclear plants for Gilmore!" and "A nuclear plant for Gilmore!". There are no prizes for guessing which one she backs. One of the biggest environmental debates of this election was supposed to be whether Australia should embrace nuclear power. John Howard enthusiastically announced in April he was putting the nuclear option on the table. "If we are fair dinkum about this climate change debate, we have to open our minds to the use of nuclear power," he said... But once the election had been called, debate shut down. With Howard trailing in the polls, the Liberal Party is acutely aware that the idea of a domestic nuclear power industry is hugely unpopular.

In August, Howard was forced to promise he would allow local communities to hold a referendum on proposed nuclear reactors in their areas. This prompted Labor to set up a web page called: "A Nuclear Reactor Near You?" with the claim that "Mr Howard wants to build 25 nuclear power plants coast to coast across Australia". So far, the principal result of Howard's nuclear push has been twofold. Labor ditched its "three-mine policy", opening the way for a huge expansion of the industry. Howard has signed up to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and international research on a new generation of nuclear power stations. But he so far has rejected any suggestion Australia will take nuclear waste from its uranium buyers. Last week the Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, battling to hold his marginal seat of Wentworth, said nuclear power was not inevitable if clean coal technology was successful.

[Source: Marian Wilkinson, "Unpopular option on back burner", Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), November 3, 2007]

Australia - uranium is pretty insignificant, economically, to Australia

And did you know that the much-vaunted value of uranium is somewhat exaggerated? It's just 1 per cent of our mining exports. As Ian Lowe points out in the latest Quarterly Essay - demolishing Howard's nuclear arguments - Australia makes more from the export of cheese.

[Source: Phillip Adams (former chairman, Australian government's Commission for the Future), "Vote change of climate", The Australian, November 3, 2007]

March 23, 2007

* Queensland poised to open uranium mining
AAP/NEWS.com.au (Australia)

Queensland has an estimated $3.2 billion in uranium deposits. But yesterday's announcement by acting Premier Anna Bligh that the state would support expansion of uranium mining represented an abrupt change that has outraged antinuclear groups who apparently thought their battles here had long been over. Just last month, the state government had passed a new law banning the construction of nuclear plants. But the government's opposition to more uranium mining was apparently mainly due to concerns that nuclear power expansion would hurt Queensland's extant coal industry. This concern was alleviated by a new government-commissioned report from the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland which showed uranium mining would not threaten the state's coal industry. The report found uranium mining and nuclear power paled in comparison to the global demand for coal-fired electricity generation.

October 25, 2006

* Govt might consider nuclear subsidies
Sydney Morning Herald

July 4, 2006

Australia - nuclear inquiry is a Trojan Horse of some sort, perhaps HLW waste import from USA?

The Prime Minister's notion of nuclear power for Australia is clearly a Trojan horse. John Howard must know full well that Australians will never accept nuclear power generation. But he is apparently hopeful he can persuade us to accept uranium enrichment, which is enormously energy intensive and adds to global warming. There is also another problem. America has 50,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste and nowhere to put it. Could Australia become part of the US nuclear waste agenda? Furthermore, the committee established by the PM to ''examine'' nuclear power is a charade. It has no experts familiar with the medical ramifications of nuclear power and nuclear waste. The Prime Minister is not serious when he says he wants an informed national "debate".

[Source: Helen Caldicott (president - Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Washington DC) and Tim Wright (president - Peace Organisation of Australia), "Anti-nuclear warrior warns on PM's nuke strategy", Herald Sun (Australia), July 4, 2006, p. 19]

June 28, 2006

Western Australia - Martu aborigines negotiating directly with mining company re: proposed Kintyre mine

Australia: Aboriginal communities in Western Australia are discussing with Rio Tinto the possibility of allowing uranium mining on their traditional land if the state government, led by the Australian Labor Party, lifts its Three Mines Policy. Ahead of a federal inquiry into the possible liberalization of restrictions on uranium mining in Australia, the Martu people are seeking royalty payments and possible joint ownership of any Rio Tinto venture at the proposed Kintyre mine. Clinton Wolf, chief executive of the Western Desert Land Aboriginal Corporation said, 'We are not getting the support from government and we are prepared to talk to Rio for our economic, social and cultural survival'. (Australian Financial Review, 28 June; NucNet News, 141/06, 29 June; see also News Briefing 05.07-2)

[Source: World Nuclear Association, WNA News Briefing, July 4, 2006, item # NB06.26-2]

* [2006-05-31] I'm happy to have nuclear waste buried in my backyard
James Lovelock, The Australian

* [2006-05-30] Nuclear power too expensive until 2030
Andrew Trounson, The Australian

* [2006-05-29] Nuclear dawn won't be tomorrow
Nigel Wilson, The Australian

* [2006-05-29] Most against nuke plants: poll
The Australian

* [2006-05-24] Nuclear power's new look: smaller, cheaper
Joseph Kerr, The Australian

* [2006-05-24] Nuclear costs highly relevant
Australian Financial Review

* [2006-05-23] Federal Govt forced to expose secret committee on nuclear power
Catherine McGrath, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-23] 'Ideal' east coast nuclear plant sites identified
ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-23] MPs debate nuclear merits
ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-23] Nuclear energy debate a farce: Garrett
Catherine McGrath, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-23] Campbell defends govt stance on nuclear energy
Catherine McGrath, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-22] Australian firm could build GE uranium facilities in Wilmington
Milwaukee Business Journal

* [2006-05-22] Ian Macfarlane says uranium enrichment a viable option for Australia
Catherine McGrath, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-22] Howard considering nuclear feasibility study
Sabra Lane, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-22] PM promotes nuclear power debate
Michael Brissenden, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-22] PM nuclear debate call a farce: Garrett
ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-22] PM flags nuclear energy debate
Craig McMurtrie, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-22] Scientist casts doubt on nuclear benefits
Business Day, ABC - Australia

* [2006-05-21] Australia considers uranium enrichment
Samantha Maiden, News Limited

* [2006-05-21] Australian energy may go nuclear
UPI

* [2006-05-20] Canada, Australia seek to protect uranium exports
Michel Comte, Yahoo! News

* [2006-05-20] Australia may develop nuclear power: PM Howard
Michael Perry, Reuters

* [2006-05-20] Greenpeace: nuclear energy no good for Australia
ABC

* [2006-05-20] PM flags nuclear future
Peter Veness, The Australian

* [2006-05-20] PM's nuke fantasy a nightmare: ALP
The Australian

* [2006-05-20] Australia, Canada to hold uranium talks
Sydney Morning Herald

* [2006-05-19] China to build six more nuclear reactors in southeast
Yahoo! Australia

* [2006-05-16] Howard flags N-power
Steve Lewis, The Australian

* [2006-05-16] Australia split over uranium boom
Nick Squires, Daily Telegraph

* [2006-05-15] Australia may become biggest nuke dump
Sydney Morning Herald

* [2006-05-14] Plan to 'lease' Australian uranium
News Limited

* [2006-05-11] Australia downplays India uranium talks
ABC

* [2006-05-11] PM denies deal on uranium
The Australian

* [2006-05-11] Australia denies plan to lift uranium ban on India
Agence France Presse/Yahoo! News

* [2006-05-05] Lucas Heights reactor safe, says ANSTO
Ninemsn (Australia)

A decision to stop 24-hour monitoring of radiation levels at Sydney's nuclear reactor will not compromise safety at the plant, its operators say. ...

* [2006-05-05] Transcript of speech by Echud Olmert
Australian Jewish News (Australia)

... The pursuit by this rogue and terror-sponsoring regime of nuclear weapons is currently the most dangerous global development, and the international community ...

* [2006-05-05] Rumsfeld faces anti-war hecklers
The Age (Australia)

... intelligence business,' Rumsfeld said about US assertions that now-deposed Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms ...

* [2006-05-05] Nuclear plant 'as safe as ever'
The Australian

* [2006-05-04] End debate on N-power: Flannery
Amanda Hodge, The Australian

* [2006-05-02] Costello 'must heed' nuclear warnings
The Australian

November 12, 2005

Australia - nuclear dump in Northern Territory - the question may be when, no if

Despite opposition from traditional owners and environmentalists, the forcing of a nuclear dump on the NT seems a question of when, rather than if. Controversial laws have been passed by Australia's House of Representatives to clear the way for a nuclear waste dump to be built in the Northern Territory despite widespread opposition. The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill, which gives the Federal Government sweeping powers to override NT laws, has been labelled a joke by the NT Government. The laws were originally expected to pass the upper house this week but the Government agreed to a Senate inquiry into the legislation, which will report to parliament on November 29.

The bill is a major step in the long search for a place to secure Australia's low and intermediate level radioactive waste, which was started by the Hawke Government in the early 1990s. The Federal Government decided to find a place for waste produced by its own agencies, while the states would have to deal with their own, after court action by South Australia forced a proposed national repository at Woomera to be abandoned last year.

Science Minister Brendan Nelson said a detailed study of three sites on commonwealth land in the Territory would be carried out at Mount Everard and Harts Range near Alice Springs and at Fishers Ridge, near Katherine.

[Source: Darrin Barnett (reporting from Canberra), "Caught in a hard place",ÊNorthern Territory News (Australia),ÊNovember 12, 2005, p. 23]

October 16, 2005

Australia - good reasons to get into nuclear fuel fabrication, reprocessing, and repository businesses

In a globalised 21st century, Australia could ensure that enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste disposal with or without reprocessing would take place in a politically stable nation possessing an optimal geology for a nuclear waste repository. The offensive and highly emotive word "dump" would soon disappear as the Australian community began to understand that valuable radio-isotopes were simply being recycled from one location -- the mine -- to another -- the repository. Within 50 years the high-level activity of spent nuclear fuel will have decayed to 0.1 per cent of its original activity. And within 1000 years it will have returned to the "background" activity of the ore body from which it was extracted. Indeed, the use of nuclear fuels for energy and the deposition of correctly packaged waste forms hundreds of metres underground will, over time, decrease Earth's background radiation field at surface level.

Ethical responsibility for both fissile and radioactive materials could best be enforced by a country such as Australia if it undertook both the front end and the rear end of the nuclear fuel cycle. In principle, every atom of fissile material can be accounted for at every stage of fuel-element manufacture and a balance audit could be carried out as the radio isotopes are returned for reprocessing and deposition. This production and recycling of nuclear fuel could best be operated as a sound and ethical commercial venture if Australian uranium producers were to "lease" the energy content of their fuels rather than sell the element. Some approximate cost estimates based on current Australian uranium production and practice may be of interest.

Australia's present three uranium mines produce about 11,500 tonnes of yellow cake (U308). This would yield about 1500 tonnes of, say, 3 per cent enriched uranium and a similar tonnage of waste for disposal. The enrichment industry might generate a revenue of about $800,000 per tonne per year.

A $2 billion capital cost waste repository could handle the 1500 tonnes of spent fuel per year and earn about $700,000 per tonne. This figure is comparable to reprocessing costs and adds about 0.5c per kilowatt-hour to the costof electrical energy from a nuclear powerstation.

This industry could be doubled or tripled in size to meet the supply and demand problems of global markets. Under the strict supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, it could become a valuable adjunct to nuclear safety in Southeast Asia and a huge asset in guarding against proliferation in a global sense.

[Source: Leslie Kemeny (International Nuclear Energy Academy's Australian foundation member), "Players in a safe nuclear tomorrow", MATP/The Australian, October 17, 2005, p. 8]

September 3, 2005

Australia not likely to turn to nuclear power, given the vast cheap coal supply

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has played down the likelihood of Australia resorting to nuclear energy despite advocating its benefits. Delivering the 2005 Sir Condor Laucke Oration in the Barossa Valley on Thursday night, Mr Downer said "Over 30 countries have nuclear power programs . . , (and) in doing so, they avoid emissions of some 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year." He said the number of reactors globally was expected to increase significantly and Australia would have a vital role to play in the future of global nuclear power. But at the same time, it was unlikely Australia would turn to nuclear energy itself soon. "Here in this country we have very cheap coal, we are blessed with enormous coal resources," Mr Downer told ABC radio. "Not only do I think that's likely to be a problem economically, just think of the political controversy and opportunism that surrounded the issue of a nuclear waste dump." Mr Downer told the audience that although the use of nuclear power in Australia may be a way off, the nation would still play a major role in the nuclear energy debate because of the growing demand for uranium. "As the holder of the world's largest uranium reserves, we have a responsibility to supply clean energy to other countries, even if so far we've chosen not to use nuclear energy ourselves."

[Source: The Advertiser, "Downer downplays plans for N-power plants in Australia", September 3, 2005, p. 45]

July 10, 2005

Australia - 100 suspected terrorists

Australia authorities have compiled a hit list of more than 100 terror suspects living here. And Prime Minister John Howard said he was considering patrols by armed police and sniffer dogs on public transport.

[Source: The Sunday Mail (Brisbane, Australia), "Ride of Terror", July 10, 2005, p. 1]

June 2, 2005

Australia - Lucas Heights on track for May 2006 fuel load

Construction of Australia's new nuclear reactor in Sydney's southern suburbs is on schedule despite its costs being more than $80 million higher than originally planned. The central part of the reactor at the Lucas Heights site - the reflector vessel - was put in the reactor pool today. Assistant project manager Ross Miller says the rising costs were not due to budgetary problems. "We've had a couple of extensions of costs on the facility, they're associate with regulatory requirements, security reviews that took place after September 11," he said. "They're also associated with some seismic anomalies that we found on the site." Nuclear fuel is due to be loaded into the OPAL (Open Pool Australian Light-water) reactor in May next year.

[Source: ABC Online, "Carr calls for nuclear power debate", June 2, 2005 8:36 pm AEST]

April 18, 2005

Australian reactor comment period extended
The Canberra Times (Australia), p. A6

The Australian Radioactive Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority has extended by four months the time for the first round of public submissions on the application by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to operate its new reactor. This follows ANSTO's agreement to publish information that it had declined to publish because it was either a threat to security or commercial-in-confidence. The Times put it like this: "Australia grinds through the process of approving its new little reactor ..."

April 16, 2005

* Groups running radioactive exposure tour
AAP/Sydney Morning Herald

Organized by environmental groups Friends of the Earth, in Melbourne, and Campaign Against Nuclear Dumping, in Adelaide, the Radioactive Exposure Tour aims to show people first hand what happens in and around a uranium mine. Tour organiser Ila Marks said the nine-day journey would take in two mines, as well as meetings with Aboriginal communities living near them. The group will also look at the environmental effects of one of the mines on a collection of mound springs 150 km away. The tour, which left Adelaide on Saturday, will travel through Woomera and learn about the effects of British atomic weapon testing at Maralinga. Next is Roxby Downs where a tour guide from WMC Resources will take the group through the company's Olympic Dam mine. The group of 34 people will also visit the Beverly uranium mine. The tour costs $400 per person or $350 concession, which includes travel, accommodation and organic vegetarian food, plus rent to Aboriginal communities.

November 19, 2004

Australia - NSW EM requests hold on new Lucas Heights reactor until waste solution verified

NSW Environment Minister Bob Debus asked the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to withhold any operating licence for the new Lucas Heights reactor until the federal Government could prove it was able to securely store and manage all radioactive waste generated. "There is intense uncertainty about the storage of nuclear waste and it's inconceivable plans are going ahead for a second reactor," he said. Mr Debus stated that the commonwealth had yet to prove it could handle the waste generated from the current reactor, let alone a new one.

[Ref: Amanda Hodge (MATP), "No to second reactor", The Australian, November 19, 2004, p. 5]

November 7, 2004

* Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah seek n-weapons, sez Aussie FM Downer

June 5, 2004

Australia - examples of ways to get more solar, insulation use

THE ACT should set a target of 50,000 solar houses by 2009, Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker said yesterday. Ms Tucker called on the ACT Government to use yesterday's World Environment Day to commit to this target." The ACT Government has decided reaching our self-imposed greenhouse target is too difficult, but that is because of years of inaction," Ms Tucker said.

"Using solar energy to heat water and ensuring decent insulation in houses is something we can do for the world environment, and it makes sense financially, but it can only happen if we set real targets, such as 50,000 houses in five years." To achieve this goal, she suggested introducing low-interest loans to allow solar water heating to be paid off through energy bill savings, imposing targets on providers to promote energy efficiency and investing in basic energy efficiency measures across all public housing. Expanding a trial to assist people on low income with reducing poverty and their environmental impact was another step, she said. It was not enough to impose energy efficiency standards on new houses because most houses in Canberra were older. Government could play a key role making it easier to retro-fit those houses, she said. The costs could be repaid in two to eight years from energy savings.

[Source: The Canberra Times (Australia), "Tucker push for solar houses target", June 7, 2004, p. A12]

June 3, 2004

* China considers building many LNG terminals, to bring gas from Australia and Iran

January 17, 2004

Australia - renewable energy progress, outlook

Australia's electric power industry is well ahead of meeting a 2010 deadline for generating an extra 2 per cent of electricity from environmentally friendly sources. A four-member panel, chaired by former Northern Territory senator Grant Tambling, found strong growth from the hydro, wind and solar hot water sectors, and their report, released yesterday, projected that industry is expected to meet the 2010 target by 2007.

But the panel found that unless further targets were set, "investment is expected to rapidly fall away... The anticipated stalling of investment from 2007 will prevent the orderly development of a renewable energy manufacturing industry, which requires steady growth in demand, not a boom and bust," the report said. "Such an outcome would also lock Australia out of technological developments that could otherwise reduce the cost of renewable energy generation over the next decade."

The panel recommends that the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target be maintained, doubled by 2020 and increased again by 2030. But the Opposition said the targets were "double nothing". The Opposition's renewable energy target of 5 per cent by 2010 would meet the Government's 2020 target a decade earlier, said Opposition environment spokesman Kelvin Thomson. "A negligible change to MRET will do nothing to stop the flight of capital investment in renewable energy projects overseas, let alone address the broader impacts of climate change," he said.

[Source: Stephanie Peatling, "Power Plan Set To Run Out Of Puff", The Age (Melbourne), January 17, 2004, p. 5]

Australia - Renewable energy target report condemned and praised

Green groups and the opposition parties condemned the Federal Government's review of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. The review recommended keeping current target for 2010 (at least 9500 gigawatt hours) and adding target for 2020 (20,000 gigawatt hours). Greens senator Bob Brown warned the targets would mean Australia would fall further behind in research, industry development and jobs in renewable energy, leaving the field clear for competitors such as Japan, Germany and Spain. Labor environment spokesman Kelvin Thomson said the report was another sign that the Government was not serious about tackling climate change. "The truth is while other countries are taking the lead in developing renewable energy industries and technologies, Australia is falling behind," Mr Thomson said.

Hydro Tasmania, however, has welcomed the recommendation to increase the national target level of renewable electricity generation. Chief executive officer Geoff Willis said the report sent an important growth signal to investors in the renewable energy industry.

[Ref: The Mercury (Australia), "Energy target discord Predictions Australia will fall behind on renewable power", January 17, 2004]

August 6, 2003

* Australia - Jabiluka uranium mine long-term care and maintenance plan approved

* Uranium production, export stats - Australia (Jan-June 2003)

July 12, 2003

* Australia would get off-the-shelf tactical nukes from US in event of a crisis, sez Newcastle U prof

* Australia could make a-bomb within 2 years of deciding to do so, and new Lucas Heights reactor is tailor-made for such an eventuality, sez Newcastle U prof

* Lucas Heights - main purpose is to maintain n-weapons option, sez ex-science adviser to Howard govt

* Australia - feds commandeered 6 sq km for proposed n-dump

* Lucas Heights - description of 20-MW reactor for which preliminary work has begun

June 16, 2003

* East Timor and Australia to get big LNG project

May 9, 2003

The site for Australia's first nuclear waste dump -- a low-level radioactive waste facility -- was announced today by Federal Minister for Science Peter McGauran. Arcoona sheep station in South Australia is the site. South Australian Premier Mike Rann said McGauran should prepare for legal battles if he chooses to go ahead with his plan. McGauran's assurance that South Australia wouldn't host another, intermediate-level radioactive waste facility prompted criticism from New South Wales' Environment Minister Bob Debus: "They've ruled out one state and now threaten communities in other states with a so-called shortlist of other possible sites," he says. "Which states are on this shortlist and when will the commonwealth share that information with those communities?" [Source: Julie Macken, "Under A Nuclear Cloud", Australian Financial Review, May 12, 2003, p. 52]

Spent fuel ocean-going boat retired; Greenpeace sez it failed previous safety test too

... despite allocating $14 million in last year's budget to remove between 300 and 400 fuel rods from storage and transport them to France, where COGEMA is under contract to reprocess Australia's waste, the rods remain stored at Lucas Heights.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation says the shipment has been postponed "for operational reasons".

According to the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader, that "operational reason" may be a "lack of a purpose-built nuclear materials-carrying ship".

According to Carolin Wenzel of Greenpeace, the ship that carried the two previous shipments of spent fuel, the Beaugenais, has been retired due to its failure to meet safety standards.

"This ship failed to pass its last safety check prior to sailing with its last Australian nuclear cargo," she says.

[Source: Julie Macken, "Under A Nuclear Cloud", Australian Financial Review, May 12, 2003, p. 52]

Lucas Heights - 2nd reactor license depends on resolution of waste issues

... the licence to operate the second nuclear reactor [at Lucas Heights] is contingent on resolving the question of the reprocessing, transport and long-term storage of the waste that would be created.

John Loy, CEO of ARPANSA, released a statement in relation to the establishment of storage for long-lived intermediate-level waste, which said: "There would need to be substantial and evident progress such as the features of the design settled, siting criteria established and a strategy and timetable in place for a site that it was moving forward with clear paths to its future establishment and I could be satisfied that a store will exist."

The focus of concern has been on what happens to the rods when they are returned from France or Argentina, after they have been reprocessed.

But The Australian Financial Review understands that, regardless of where the site is finally located for the intermediate level of nuclear waste, Lucas Heights will remain a de facto dump because the second reactor is expected to store between five and 10 years of spent nuclear fuel rods at any one time. That storage capacity is part of its design plan.

[Source: Julie Macken, "Under A Nuclear Cloud", Australian Financial Review, May 12, 2003, p. 52]

South Australian aborigines tell Sydney to keep it's radioactive rubbish

... the Senior Aboriginal Women of Coober Pedy have sent an open letter to the Environment Minister asking him, "to keep that rubbish where you make it".

Their reasons are simple. They wrote: "You have been playing around with that poison for a long time in Sydney at Lucas heights.

"You have to keep that rubbish where you make it. You can keep an eye on it there, but here [in the South Australian desert] you would just forget about it and it will poison the water. We are the Culture Women and we are worried about the tjitji tjabu all the little kids still coming up after us. We know that the poison will go down underground and leak into the water."

[Source: Julie Macken, "Under A Nuclear Cloud", Australian Financial Review, May 12, 2003, p. 52]

Eileen Brown recalls the Oct 15, 1953 atomic test in South Australia

Totem 1, a massive atomic test, was detonated on October 15, 1953, at Emu Field, South Australia. The blast sent a dense radioactive cloud far beyond the testing range, more than 250 kilometres north-west to Wallatinna and down to Coober Pedy.

Eileen Kampakuta Brown , winner of the 2003 Goldman Environmental Prize, watched the catastrophe unfold before her eyes 50 years ago. She says: "Westward we noticed the smoke when the sun was going down. We thought the farmers were burning stumps, cleaning them up. We could see the light clear. Smelling a different smell. We were all talking about it, 'Oh, it must be the farmers, the workers'. We were watching it, then we went to sleep. We were close, that was why the smoke [nuclear fallout] caught us.

"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 were wondering what sort of sickness we had. We put a dish in every corner, a dish of hot water and Vicks. We covered ourselves with blankets to breathe in the Vicks. There were no doctors, only the two station bosses.

"All day we sat in the tent with our eyes closed. Our eyes were sore, red and shut. We couldn't open them. We were coughing. All people got sick right up to Oodnadata. We saw the poison [from Maralinga] and we all got sick."

It is now a matter of record that everyone Aboriginal, British and white Australians did get sick and Maralinga continues to be home to "mumoo" bad spirits.

[Source: Julie Macken, "Under A Nuclear Cloud", Australian Financial Review, May 12, 2003, p. 52]

Maralinga cleanup - shallow burial method, and govt veracity, criticized

Despite announcing three years ago that Maralinga was now clean at a cost of $108 million the Maralinga Tjarutja people are not sure they want it back and the government is facing continuing criticism over its clean-up method.

On March 25, 2003, McGauran announced that the clean-up had been of a "world-class standard".

That is "nonsense" according to Jim Green. Green, a longtime anti-nuclear campaigner who did his PhD on "Reactors, Radioisotopes and the HIFAR Controversy " ( a study on the controversy surrounding the second reactor at Lucas heights), believes that if the government's attempt to clean up Maralinga is any guide to its competency to handle a nuclear waste dump, South Australians have a lot to be concerned about.

He says: "I'm reminded of McGauran's dissembling in relation to the so-called clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear test site. There, vitrification [encasing the waste in glass] of plutonium-contaminated debris was described as world's best practice, but when vitrification was abandoned as a cost-cutting measure, shallow burial of this long-lived waste became world's best practice. Both cannot be true."