Return to contents
NO NUKES NEWS, APRIL 2, 2006


* How to make nuclear power safe in six easy steps
* The death toll from Chernobyl
 * Uranium sales to China and India
* Beazley - strengthening safegaurds AND selling uranium to China ...?
* Yellowcake fever and penny dreadfuls
* US breaches NPT disarmament obligations - again and again and again
* Nukes no solution to climate change, UK report says
* Government neglect of renewables
* NT nuclear waste dump
* Push to open Honeymoon U mine in SA
* Sweden to abandon fossil fuels and nukes
* Chernobyl appeal
* Roxby waste problems revealed
* Nuclear power - safe as houses. Not.
* Uranium exploration in Australia
* Government pressure on Mirarr re Jabiluka
* Radioactive racism in Australia

------------------->

How to make nuclear power safe in six easy steps

Jim Green, Friends of the Earth
March 2006

1) Acknowledge immediate deaths that were undoubtedly caused by the nuclear accident. Ignore long-term deaths from exposure to lower levels of radiation. For example, immediate deaths from Chernobyl were about 50, credible estimates of long-term deaths range from thousands to tens of thousands.

2) Consider nuclear power reactor accidents and ignore the impacts of accidents across the nuclear fuel cycle, e.g. serious and sometimes fatal accidents at uranium mines, uranium enrichment plants, reprocessing plants etc.

3) Fudging the science. For example, studies of the death toll from Chernobyl necessarily rely on statistical/epidemiological studies, and even epidemiology is a fairly blunt instrument because of the 'statistical noise' in the form of widepsread cancer incidence from many causes. Another way to estimate the death toll is to multiply the estimated total human radiation exposure from Chernobyl by a standard risk estimate. This is totally legitimate though, of course, no better than the underlying estimates. Using a standard risk estimate from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (0.04 cancer deaths per person-Sievert) and the International Atomic Energy Agency's estimate of total exposure (600,000 person-Sieverts) gives an estimated 24,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. By contrast, nuclear apologists ignore altogether these long-term predicted deaths.

4) Ignore the greatest danger of nuclear power, a problem that is unique among energy sources - its direct and repeatedly-demonstrated connection to the production of nuclear weapons.

5) Make wild claims about the safety of 'new generation' reactors. Impossible to prove or disprove these claims, since the new reactors exist only as designs on paper. One cynic from within the nuclear industry has quipped that "the paper-moderated, ink-cooled reactor is the safest of all."

6) And, among many other ways to 'prove' the safety of the nuclear industry, claim that a nuclear accident did not effect any member of the 'community' or the public ... without mentioning that a number of nuclear industry workers were harmed or killed. (For example, the Lucas Heights nuclear agency ANSTO pretends that no research reactor accident has ever harmed a member of the surrounding community .... which is a cute way of avoiding mention of five or six fatal research reactor accidents.)

------------------->

The Death Toll from Chernobyl

Jim Green, Friends of the Earth
March 2006

Pro-nuclear advocates frequently claim that the death toll from the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster was 30-60 deaths. They also claim, as the Uranium Information Centre (2004) does, that "there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed" to fallout from Chernobyl.

Such claims are ill-informed and/or misleading. It is widely acknowledged that it is difficult for epidemiological studies to demonstrate statistically significant increases in cancers or other pathologies caused by Chernobyl fallout for various reasons such as the relatively high incidence of the diseases, the latency period of cancers, and limited data on disease incidence. However, difficulties in measuring impacts is no justification for trivialising or ignoring them.

The Uranium Information Centre (2004) states that a "greater, though not statistically discernible" incidence of leukaemia and other cancers is expected as a result of Chernobyl fallout. There is little expectation, however, of statistically significant results. Further, when statistically significant results are obtained, explanations other than Chernobyl can easily be suggested. For example, it is widely accepted that Chernobyl fallout has caused about 1800 cases of thyroid cancer but it has also been suggested that the rapid increase in thyroid cancers may be in part an artefact of the screening process (Uranium Information Centre, 2004). Likewise, a study attributing over 800 cancers in Sweden to Chernobyl fallout has been disputed (Anon., 2004). Another example is a debate over increased rates of infant leukaemia in several countries (Low Level Radiation Campaign, n.d.).

Some of the difficulties were described by Elizabeth Cardis (1996) from the International Agency for Research on Cancer: "Although some increases in the frequency of cancer in exposed populations have been reported, these results are difficult to interpret, mainly because of differences in the intensity and method of follow-up between exposed populations and the general population with which they are compared. ... The total lifetime numbers of excess cancers will be greatest among the 'liquidators' (emergency and recovery workers) and among the residents of 'contaminated' territories, of the order of 2000 to 4600 among each group (the size of the exposed populations is 200,000 liquidators and 6,800,000 residents of 'contaminated' areas). These increases would be difficult to detect epidemiologically against an expected background number of 41,500 and 800,000 cases of cancer respectively among the two groups."

Similarly, the report of a major international conference in 1996 stated: "Among the 7.1 million residents of 'contaminated' territories and 'strict control zones', the number of fatal cancers due to the accident is calculated, using the predictive models, to be of the order of 6600 over the next 85 years, against a spontaneous number of 870,000 deaths due to cancer. Future increases over the natural incidence of all cancers, except for thyroid cancer, or hereditary effects among the public would be difficult to discern, even with large and well designed long term epidemiological studies". (EC/IAEA/WHO, 1996.)

Given the limitations of epidemiological studies, the only way to arrive at an estimate of the total numbers of cancers caused by the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl is to estimate the total collective dose and to apply standard risk estimates. Thus the IAEA (1996) estimate of a collective dose of 600,000 person-Sieverts over 50 years from Chernobyl fallout can be multiplied by a standard risk estimate of 0.04 fatal cancers per person-Sievert to give a total estimate of 24,000 fatal cancers. (The recent study by the US National Research Council (2005) lends weight to the Linear No Threshold model upon which the risk estimate is based.)

While the Chernobyl death toll is subject to uncertainty, the broader social impacts are all too clear, including those resulting from the permanent relocation of about 220,000 people from Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the Ukraine. As the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (2002) notes, Chernobyl "had serious radiological, health and socio-economic consequences for the populations of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, which still suffer from these consequences."

Anon., November 20, 2004, "Study Suggests Chernobyl Affected Sweden", Associated Press, <www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Sweden-Chernobyl-Cancer.html>.

Cardis, Elizabeth, April 1996, "Estimated Long Term Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident", Proceedings of international conference, One Decade After Chernobyl – Summing up the consequences of the accident, Vienna, April 1996, sponsored by EU, IAEA & WHO. <www.uic.com.au/nip22app.htm#cardis>.

EC/IAEA/WHO (European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation), 1996, International Conference: One Decade after Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident", Vienna, Austria 8-12 April, 1996, <www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/Safety/Chernobyl/concls17.html>.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1996, "Long-term Committed Doses from Man-made Sources," IAEA Bulletin, Vol.38, No.1.

Low Level Radiation Campaign, n.d., "Shooting the Miners' Canary", <www.llrc.org/index.html>.

National Research Council (of the US National Academy of Sciences), 2005, "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII – Phase 2)", written by the NRC's Board on Radiation Research Effects, <www.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html>.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1998, "Uranium 1997: Resources, Production and Demand", Paris: OECD.

Uranium Information Centre, 2004, "Chernobyl Accident", Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 22, <www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm>.

------------------->

URANIUM SALES TO CHINA AND INDIA

------------------->

Media Release 31/3/06

Medical and enviro groups oppose U sales to China

With Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visiting Australia this Saturday-Tuesday, medical and environmental groups are today releasing a statement opposing uranium exports to China.

The statement is endorsed by Friends of the Earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Public Health Association of Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, and the Arids Lands Environment Centre (Alice Springs). It is posted at: <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/chinauran.html>,

Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, President of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, the Australian chapter of the Nobel Peace Prize winning International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, said: "China has been a major supplier of nuclear technology to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Libya. In Pakistan, China is believed to have supplied nuclear bomb plans, highly enriched uranium, assisted the construction of an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor at Khusab and the completion of a plutonium reprocessing facility at Chasma.

"China has a large nuclear weapons and material production complex. There is a close coupling between military and civilian nuclear activities - the China National Nuclear Corporation produces, stores, and controls all fissile material for civilian as well as military applications," Assoc. Prof. Ruff said.

Dr. Jim Green from Friends of the Earth said: "It would be naive to believe the federal government's propaganda regarding uranium safeguards. The International Atomic Energy Agency has itself acknowledged that its safeguard inspection system is 'fairly limited' and in need of significant reform."

"All that would stand between Australian uranium and Chinese nuclear weapons is the integrity of the Communist regime - a regime which is responsible for five out of six executions carried out around the world, refuses to ratify and abide by a raft of human rights treaties, and persecutes rather than protects whistle-blowers."

"Perhaps Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao could update us on the status of Sun Xiaodi during his visit. Sun Xiaodi was publicily voicing concerns about environmental contamination at a Chinese uranium mine until he was abducted bythe Communist regime in April 2005 immediately after speaking to a foreign journalist. He has not been heard from since," Dr. Green said.

Statement posted at: <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/chinauran.html>

------------------->

Credentials the cost of nuclear sell-out
March 8, 2006
http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/credentials-the-cost-of-nuclear-sellout/2006/03/07/1141701508506.html
Sales of uranium to India can only damage an already fragile treaty, writes Richard Broinowski.
ON MAY 24, 1977, Malcolm Fraser announced to Parliament the terms under which uranium would be exported. These were designed with three groups in mind: the United States, the mining lobby and Australians.
The US had voiced strong non-proliferation concerns. The miners wanted to sell as much uranium as possible. But Australians have always been volatile about things nuclear, and John Gorton had to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1971 to placate them.
The minimum requirement for selling uranium, Fraser said, was that customer states must be signatories to the treaty. Only then could bilateral safeguards be negotiated.
Fast forward to this week, when another conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, is in India in the wake of a visit by the US President, George Bush. Despite several commercially driven modifications to Fraser's strict conditions, the main two are still intact: customer countries for Australian uranium must be members of the treaty, and a bilateral safeguards agreement must be negotiated.
But Bush, apparently without consulting Howard, has negotiated a nuclear co-operation agreement with India. And the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, is now leaning on Australia to provide uranium.
Apparently making it up as he went along, Howard initially said Australia might be able to make an exception of India. To his credit, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, at first repeated the cardinal condition that no uranium may be sold to countries outside the treaty. But differences between Downer and his leader then became muted as they both took the middle ground - possible uranium sales to India would be seriously considered in the light of the US-India cooperation deal.
Greg Sheridan, following the Howard entourage in India, writes in The Australian that not to sell uranium to India "is just the kind of dumb, counterproductive, crazy play we have historically made too often in Asia, especially with India".
Well, no. It's the only decision that can possibly shore up a failing international safeguards system. Already there is widespread disillusionment with the double standards of the treaty, especially the refusal of the five recognised nuclear weapons states to take any meaningful action under Article VI to reduce their nuclear arsenals, while non-nuclear states must refrain from acquiring their own.
The double standards extend to Israel, Pakistan and Iran.
The first two, like India, have escaped international censure for developing their nuclear weapons outside the treaty. Meanwhile Iran correctly asserts that as a treaty signatory, it has the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, including enrichment. But it is disbelieved, and may be bombed instead of being given treaty-sanctioned co-operation.
The sale of Australian uranium to India would not just weaken our non-proliferation credentials - it would also signal to some of our major uranium customers, such as Japan and South Korea, that we do not take too seriously their own adherence to the treaty.
They may as a result walk away from the treaty and develop nuclear weapons - against North Korea, China, or perhaps Russia - without necessarily fearing a cut-off of Australian supplies. We would certainly have no moral grounds for stopping supply.
As for China, we have heard nothing about secret talks the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is having in Beijing to negotiate a bilateral safeguards agreement.
But with news of possible uranium sales to India, Chinese officials will surely make the job of negotiating a strong bilateral agreement with Australia tougher, not to mention accusing Australia of helping the US and India contain China through a co-ordinated nuclear strategy.
Meanwhile, India asserts that Australian uranium would be used in 14 out of its 22 reactors. Which ones are these? How are its "peaceful" reactors distinguished from the military ones? What guarantees would there be that Australian uranium, a fungible commodity, would not be used in both types, or to allow scarce Indian uranium or thorium to be diverted to a growing Indian nuclear weapons program?
The Australian Government should back right away from supplying uranium to either India or China until a new treaty, one without double standards, can be negotiated. Only an internationally respected treaty can prevent further nuclear production.
Richard Broinowski is a former senior Australian diplomat and author of Fact or Fission - the truth about Australia's nuclear ambitions.

------------------->

Howard's nuclear sales sidestep
By Michelle Grattan, New Delhi, and Misha Schubert, Canberra
March 7, 2006
<http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howards-nuclear-sales-sidestep/2006/03/06/1141493611268.html>
WITHIN hours of opening the door to possible sales of Australian uranium to India, Prime Minister John Howard appears to have shut it again.
Mr Howard said yesterday there was "no current intention" to change Australia's policy banning sales to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Confusion over the issue arose after Mr Howard, on his Sunday night arrival in New Delhi, gave the impression that Australia might shift its position, following US President George Bush's deal with India for the supply of American nuclear technology.
In an apparent softening of Australia's line, which drew a storm of protest domestically, Mr Howard said on Sunday night: "We do have a long-standing policy of only selling uranium to countries that are part of the NPT regime. But we will have a look at what the Americans have done and when we get a bit more information about that, we'll further assess it."
He said yesterday there was "no change of policy" and "no current intention to change that policy".
While Mr Howard still left some slight room to manoeuvre, his emphasis had switched back to his position before leaving Australia, when he reaffirmed the current safeguards policy.
Government sources suggested that Mr Howard's apparent wobble reflected a desire to be diplomatic before his meeting late yesterday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
After yesterday's ceremonial welcome, Dr Singh made a public pitch for Australian uranium. "We would very much like Australia to sell uranium to India," he told reporters. "We are short of uranium."
Mr Howard insisted he had not on Sunday night been saying anything different from what he had said previously. "Let me repeat it again," he said. "We have a policy of only selling to countries that adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and we have no current intention of changing that policy.
"Mr Downer said that last Friday and I said it yesterday and am repeating it today. But that doesn't mean you don't take note of what's happened between the Americans and the Indians, you don't listen to what the Indians are going to put to us.
"India is a very friendly country towards Australia and I intend to listen what the Indian Prime Minister will say to me."
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane was unequivocal yesterday. Asked whether Australia was about to start laying the pathway to selling uranium to India, he said: "No, we are not … India is not a potential market for us."
He said Australia would never sell to India as long it remained outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Mr Howard's earlier comments provoked a strong response in Australia, with green groups and a prominent former diplomat expressing hostility to any change in policy.
Richard Broinowski, an expert on nuclear issues now based at Sydney University, warned that re-examining the ban on uranium sales to nations that refuse to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be "dangerous" and would send a message to rogue nuclear powers that errant behaviour would be rewarded.
Professor Broinowski also tipped massive growth in uranium exports in coming years, saying another 28 remote sites had been earmarked for mining as soon as prices made them profitable.
He said any deal to sell uranium to India would degrade the global treaty and undercut the legitimacy of other uranium agreements Australia had forged.
"It's already a treaty of double standards but it's getting even worse and it sends the wrong kind of signals to countries like Iran," Professor Broinowski said.
David Noonan of the Australian Conservation Foundation said lifting the ban on sales to India would be irresponsible.
"They have a limited supply of uranium, so if we give them as much uranium as they ask for, it simply frees them up to use that limited supply within the nuclear weapons program," he said.
"We would then be complicit in India expanding and continuing its nuclear weapons agenda."
Labor's resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, accused Mr Howard of riding on the coat-tails of the US, while Greens Senator Christine Milne said the PM appeared to have given up on international law. "If you're going to sell outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, does that mean to say we are now going to sell to Israel? Are we now going to sell to Pakistan?" she said.
Professor Broinowski said even raising the idea of scrapping the ban on uranium sales to rogue nuclear nations gave other rebel nations encouragement.
The mining industry moved to hose down public alarm, with Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke saying local companies were not about to damage their integrity by selling uranium to a nation that had not signed the treaty.

------------------->

Chin Jin: Put national security ahead
Canberra should think twice before selling uranium to China
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18650965%255E601,00.html>
March 30, 2006

CHINESE State Premier Wen Jiabao will visit Australia this weekend to sign an agreement for sale of Australian uranium to China. Canberra has indicated it is assured that China, a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, will not use the uranium for weapons manufacture.

While selling uranium might be in Australia's short-term economic interest, it is not in our long-term national security interest. There is a close link between uranium and nuclear weaponry development. How, on the basis of this agreement, can Australia be sure China will use its uranium for peaceful rather than military means?
The Chinese Government has ignored or invalidated its commitments and treaties in the recent past. China became signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1998.
However, to this day, these two treaties have not been ratified and put into operation in China. In addition, the Chinese Government has failed in its commitment to abide by the World Trade Organisation by opening up and liberalising its banking system and media organisations.
And China has shown nothing but contempt for intellectual property rights, a situation that has enraged the US. Even when it comes to matters of public health that have the capability of affecting not only China but the world, the Government in Beijing has demonstrated a propensity to stall and obfuscate.
A week passed before the Chinese Government admitted to the massive benzene spill in the Songhua River that shut down Harbin's water. The more recent toxic spill in Sichuan showed no lesson had been learned: again, a week passed before any public announcement.
Outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and then avian flu were initially denied and hidden. According to eyewitness accounts, when SARS broke out in China and the World Health Organisation brought in a team of disease experts for an inspection, SARS patients were packed into ambulances and driven around Beijing. They were only returned to the hospitals after the inspectors concluded Beijing was not under threat of SARS.
What assurance does Australia have that such tactics will not be employed to avoid detection of misuse of its uranium? What sort of inspection regime is needed to ensure the use of Australian uranium is not mismanaged?
Is China on the road to a "peaceful rise", as Communist Party leaders tell us? Its growing economy and huge domestic market dazzle the West, while its military build-up and reactionary political stance has prompted US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to warn of its potential as a negative force.
Historically, a newly emerging power often clashes with existing powers. In the Asia-Pacific region, the most likely zone of conflict is Taiwan, with its pro-independence leader repeatedly challenging the territorial integrity of the communist People's Republic.
Though not imminent, should such a conflict materialise and draw in the US, what would Australia do? Australia's long-standing security relationship with the US will be in conflict with its benign business relationship with China and Australia will be put to the test by both. By selling uranium to China, Australia is possibly backing the foe of an ally.
World War II was to a great extent caused by the appeasement of Nazi Germany by Britain and France. At the end of World War II, repeating Chamberlain's mistake, US president Franklin Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill signed the Yalta treaty with Stalin, in which the Soviet Union obtained an undeserved post-war position in East Asia.
With the continuation of this policy by the Truman administration, communist-led troops were given a free hand to sweep over mainland China. The US looked on without going to rescue its former wartime ally, Nationalist Chiang Kai-shek. To some extent, this incited Kim Il-sung's adventure in the Korean War for the unification of the whole peninsula. Thus took shape the Cold War of East-West confrontation, lasting 40-odd years. Today, a neo-appeasement is taking effect. In confronting the rise of China, the policies and performances of Western democracies are less than laudable. Western leaders, Australia among them, seek access to China's huge market and play down the significance of democratic principles and human rights, overlooking the suffering of the 1.3 billion people under Chinese totalitarianism.
Let us not forget China is a country where the private meetings of Christians in their homes are raided by the police; where there are reports Falun Gong practitioners are placed in barbed-wire camps and tortured; where an individual is sent to jail for seven to 10 years for doing nothing but posting internet messages about democracy.
The liberalising economic policy taking effect since the end of the 1970s has pushed China forward into an unprecedented period of high growth. Most Western observers believed political reform would inevitably follow.
Unfortunately, the present outlook for China is not positive. The injection of enormous amounts of capital has rescued the regime of the Chinese Communist Party; the high rate of economic growth has helped legitimise it and keep it in power. Have investments and other commercial activities in China impeded more urgent political reform?
During Premier Wen's visit to Australia, Prime Minister John Howard should let his counterpart witness the cut and thrust of question time in the House of Representatives to see first-hand how a democracy is supposed to work. And he should lobby Wen to make good use of his political clout to push forward the political reform agenda in China, so that China can enter the mainstream of world democracy and keep itself on the right side of history.
Chin Jin is a Chinese-born Australian citizen who is chairman of the Federation for a Democratic China (Australian division).

------------------->

More articles on proposed U sales to China: <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/chinauran.html>

------------------->

BEAZLEY - STRENGTHENING SAFEGAURDS AND SELLING URANIUM TO CHINA ...?

------------------->

Labor trying to take the moral high-ground by promising to improve uranium safeguards ... but still supporting uranium sales to the Chinese regime. Spot the contradiction.

Kim Beazley speech
Responsible Leadership - Australia As A Nuclear Supplier In A Proliferating World
March 23, 2006
<http://www.alp.org.au/media/0306/speloo230.php>

------------------->

Beazley must reject U sales to China
Friends of the Earth - Media Release - 23/3/06

With ALP leader Kim Beazley set to make a speech on nuclear safeguards tonight, Friends of the Earth calls on him to oppose the Howard government's ill-considered proposal to export uranium to China's Communist regime.

The Australian newspaper reports this morning that Mr. Beazley will insist in his Sydney University speech that under a Labor government, "No country will get its hands on Australian uranium without signing the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - NPT] and living by it."

FoE nuclear campaigner Dr. Jim Green said: "There is one simple test of Mr. Beazley's commitment to nuclear disarmament: will he oppose the Howard government's plan to export uranium to China's secretive, repressive, military regime? It would be impossible to ensure that Australian uranium does not end up in Chinese nuclear weapons. The Chinese regime is flouting its NPT disarmament obligations, has an active nuclear weapons program, and refuses to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

"The Chinese regime has a disgraceful record of exporting WMD technology to Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Libya. Mr. Beazley said last October that "the intersection of the nuclear proliferation issues and the war on terror must take top priority in all the decisions we make on exporting uranium" - so he cannot credibly support uranium sales to China."

As a nuclear weapons state, China is not subject to full-scope IAEA safeguards. The Howard government does not require that nuclear weapons states subscribe to the IAEA's Strengthened Safeguards Program as a condition of uranium exports. In the absence of strengthened safeguards, the inspection regime was described by IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei as "fairly limited" in a February 2005 speech.

FoE nuclear campaigner Michaela Stubbs said: "The Chinese regime's record of human rights abuses and repression makes it more difficult to safeguard uranium. We know of one case of a nuclear industry whistle-blower being abducted by state authorities and held without charge since April 2005, and no doubt there are other similar cases. China's record of media censorship - the regime has more journalists in prison than any other country - also makes it more difficult to safeguard uranium."

Contact: Jim Green 0417 318368. Michaela Stubbs 0429 136935.
Briefing paper: <www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/chinauran.html>.

------------------->

Beazley flags 'three mine' policy debate
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1603682.htm
March 29, 2006.
Labor leader Kim Beazley says there could be a push to change his party's uranium mining policy at the next national conference.
The party's policy is that no new mines should be opened but some including the South Australian Premier say that is anachronistic.
Mr Beazley says ALP members can push for the policy change if they wish.
He says he is more concerned about what happens to the uranium and argues the Government is signalling it could sell to India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"Anybody is entitled to move at a Labor Party conference any change to party policy, be you a premier or an ordinary delegate, you can certainly do that," he said.
"I'm focusing on what matters here, what matters here is the terms and conditions under which we export uranium and the Howard Government is undermining them, right now, right now they're undermining them and Australians are uncomfortable with it."
Australia is set to sell uranium to China in a deal that is potentially worth billions of dollars.
India is also keen to buy Australia's uranium, but unlike China it has not signed the treaty.
Mr Beazley says it is dangerous for Prime Minister John Howard to have sounded supportive of the idea of selling uranium to India.
"He is already talking about exporting to India without India signing up to what should be one of the most fundamental conditions, the Non-Proliferation Treaty," Mr Beazley said.
"Now how can you go to the Iranians and say 'don't you develop a nuclear weapon, you conform to the NPT' when to make a profit you go to the Indians and say 'we'll sell to you no matter what you do about the NPT'."
Mr Howard has said there is no plan to change the policy of selling only to nations that have signed the treaty.

------------------->

YELLOWCAKE FEVER AND PENNY DREADFULS

------------------->

Our uranium bubble looks like trouble
Robin Bromby
March 30, 2006
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18648492%255E643,00.html>

IT looks like a bubble, it sounds like a bubble.

The ranks of listed uranium juniors have nearly doubled in the past year, and half that rise in numbers took place in just three months - and there's more to come.
Most of them don't have a drilled resource, many of them are exploring in states where governments ban uranium mining. Even when they do have a resource, the gains look extraordinary.
Summit Resources, one of the more advanced explorers, has gone from 27c 11 months ago to $1.41 yesterday. It is now capitalised at $265 million - even though the Labor Government in Queensland where it is based is the nation's most obdurate in banning yellowcake production.
The one Australian company that is developing a mine, Paladin Resources, has still to come into production in Namibia, but is now capitalised at an extraordinary $2.37 billion.
Even if the much hyped Chinese investment flows into our uranium industry, the money from Beijing will be talking to BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which - unlike most of the stocks in the eye of the speculative storm - have substantial undeveloped uranium resources here and exploration data to back them up.
Enthusiasts pointed to the rising uranium price and the growing world shortage of uranium, but analysts said any of the new explorers were four or five years away from production - at best.
Uranium at $US40.50 a pound is no use to a company that is still drilling its first holes.
Analysts who specialise in junior resources stocks were yesterday unanimous in warning that investors are heading for a fall by pumping up uranium stocks.
Fat Prophets's Gavin Wendt called the speculative wave "ridiculous".
Far East Capital's Warwick Grigor blasted investors as being "naive".
Stock Resource analyst Steve Bartrop called one of the recent listings and market darling Toro Energy "overpriced grassroots exploration".
From the US, uranium bull and publisher of the 26-year-old International Speculator newsletter, Doug Casey, said the flood of new uranium juniors was his main worry.
"With so many companies competing for the same number of investment dollars, can we as speculators still expect the same sort of gains that we've enjoyed over the past few years?" he wrote in his latest issue. This from a man who made 1587 per cent by riding Australia's Paladin Resources.
According to Sydney-based Resource Capital Research, there are now 65 uranium juniors listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, a 96 per cent rise over the past 12 months.
In coming weeks, two more will list: Intermet Resources and the Giralia spin-off, U308.
Canada now counts 90 uranium juniors, up 104 per cent over 12 months.
Mr Wendt said that, apart from Paladin, he could not see a single Australian uranium explorer that had a chance of getting into production in the foreseeable future.
Western Australia might change its ban on uranium, but the situation in Queensland was complicated by the power of the coal lobby, which opposes uranium development because it was an energy competitor, Mr Wendt said.

------------------->

Yellowcake fever intensifies
Ben Sharples
March 30, 2006
MiningNews.net - www.miningnews.net

THE madness surrounding uranium has continued, with investors keen to feast on anything yellowcake-related, big or small, with A1 Minerals, Monax Mining and Joseph Gutnick's Quantum Resources just some that are reaping the benefits.

Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt told MiningNews.net the demand for uranium stocks is being driven by the uranium price, but labelled the frenzy as "crazy" and "ridiculous".

"When an underlying commodity is performing strongly, obviously there is going to be significant interest in those companies in the sector," Wendt said.

"The only problem is … there is no indication outside of Paladin Resources that any of those other Australian companies will actually have the prospect of mining approvals being granted.

"There is no indication that any new mines will be given the go-ahead, if there is an expansion in uranium mining it is likely it will be related a couple of the existing major operations like Olympic Dam.

"There is no prospect and there has certainly been no indication by any of the state governments that they intend to change their view.

"Most of these uranium plays are so far removed from production that it is almost ridiculous to try and draw a line between the price of uranium and to try and put a value on those companies."

ANZ Global natural resources analyst Andrew Harrington told MiningNews.net he didn't think the "mania" surrounding uranium stocks was sustainable.

"People are running up the share prices of companies that have uranium prospect in areas that are not even allowed to mine," Harrington said. "It's crazy."

Budding gold producer A1 Minerals is the lastest to jump on the bandwagon, announcing preliminary imagery from a government radiometric survey has indicated the presence of "anomalistic" uranium channel radioactivity on its Narnoo exploration project in Western Australia.

The news sent A1 shares up 6c (20%) to 30c during morning trade, before the stock settled at 27c mid-morning.

Elsewhere, Monax Mining shares peaked at 37c, gaining 8c during morning trade on the back of news that the company had applied for two tenements around its Ambrosia project in South Australia's Gawler Craton.

Monax shares eventually settled at 32c mid-morning.

However, the standout performer was Quantum Resources, which surged more than 200% from 2.8c to 9.4c yesterday on the back of news the company would start exploring for uranium in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, as soon as the tenements were granted.

The stock eventually settled at 6.8c yesterday, with more than 22 million shares changing hands. The stock was off 1c during morning trade at 5.8c.

------------------->

US BREACHES NPT DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS - AGAIN.

------------------->

The Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation
March 31, 2006
Jimmy Carter
<www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-pandoras-box-of-nuclear-proliferation/2006/03/30/1143441273695.html>

During the past five years, the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, writes Jimmy Carter.

DURING the past five years, the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower. This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option. The proposed nuclear deal with India is just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation.
The only substantive commitment among nuclear-weapon states and others is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepted by the five original nuclear powers and 182 other nations. Its key objective is "to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology … and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament". At the five-year United Nations review conference in 2005, only Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan were not participating — three with proven arsenals.
The US Government has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and spent more than $US80 billion ($A113 billion) on a doubtful effort to intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental missiles, with annual costs of about $9 billion. We have also forgone compliance with the previously binding limitation on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, with announced plans for earth-penetrating "bunker busters," some secret new "small" bombs, and a move towards deployment of destructive weapons in space. Another long-standing policy has been publicly reversed by our threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These decisions have aroused negative responses from treaty signatories, including China, Russia and even our nuclear allies, whose competitive alternative is to upgrade their own capabilities without regard to arms control agreements.
Last year former defence secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns: "I would characterise current US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."
It must be remembered that there are no detectable efforts being made to seek confirmed reductions of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, of which the US possesses about 12,000, Russia 16,000, China 400, France 350, Israel 200, Britain 185, India and Pakistan 40 each — and North Korea has sufficient enriched nuclear fuel for a half-dozen. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgements, as it was during the depths of the Cold War.
Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders' nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the treaty.
There was some fanfare in announcing that India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, and that US companies might win two of those reactor contracts, but this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary. The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity.
So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and Congress should preclude the sale of such technology to India. Former senator Sam Nunn said that the agreement "certainly does not curb in any way the proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material". India should also sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the treaty encourages the spread of nuclear weapons. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the treaty to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms? At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighbouring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use. The world has observed that among the "axis of evil", non-nuclear Iraq was invaded and a perhaps more threatening North Korea has not been attacked.
The global threat of proliferation is real, and the destructive capability of irresponsible nations — and perhaps even some terrorist groups — will be enhanced by a lack of leadership among nuclear powers that are not willing to restrain themselves or certain partners. Like it or not, the United States is at the forefront in making these crucial strategic decisions. A world armed with nuclear weapons could be a terrible legacy of the wrong choices.
Jimmy Carter was United States President from 1977 to 1981.

------------------->

US signals abandonment of nuclear disarmament
March 5, 2006.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1584126.htm
The United States has signalled its apparent abandonment of the goal of nuclear disarmament "for the foreseeable future" as it embarked on a quest for a new generation of more reliable nuclear warheads.
Although the term "nuclear disarmament" quietly disappeared from the Bush administration's vocabulary long ago, the statement by Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, marked the first time a top government official publicly acknowledged a goal enshrined in key international documents will no longer be pursued.
"The United States will, for the foreseeable future, need to retain both nuclear forces and the capabilities to sustain and modernise those forces," Mr Brooks stated on Friday as he addressed the East Tennessee Economic Council in the city of Oak Ridge, which is home to a major nuclear weapons complex.
"I do not see any chance of the political conditions for abolition arising in my lifetime, nor do I think abolition could be verified if it were negotiated."
The acknowledgment represents a departure from commitments given by previous US administrations to their negotiating partners and the international community at large.
In September 1998, then-presidents Bill Clinton of the United States and Boris Yeltsin of Russia signed a joint statement, in which they reaffirmed the two countries' commitment to "the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament".
In addition, unambiguous disarmament clauses are contained in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1968 by all leading nuclear powers of that era, including the United States, and now used to rein in nuclear ambitions by countries like Iran and North Korea.
In the preamble to the accord, the signatories agreed "to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery".
- AFP

------------------->

In addition, the US:
* refuses to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
* has made a mockery of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (and has  made plans to resume plutonium production)
* is working on new generations of nuclear weapons
* is lowering the lead time for a resumption of nuclear weapons testing
* is producing tritium for nuclear weapons and using a 'peaceful' nuclear power reactor to produce this weapons material
* has publicly declared its willingness to use nuclear weapons including first strikes and strikes against non nuclear weapons states, developed a hit-list of seven countries (detailed in the2002 Nuclear Posture Review) which includes five NPT signatories and five non nuclear weapons states (China, Russia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea)
* states (in the 2002 NPR) that it intends to maintain its nuclear arsenal 'forever' which is a clear violation of NPT obligations
* is embarking on nuclear co-operation with NPT-renegade state India.

------------------->

NUKES NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE, UK REPORT SAYS

------------------->

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html

Nuclear Power Won't Fix It

Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply, according to the Sustainable Development Commission.



In response to the Government’s current Energy Review, the SDC nuclear report draws together the most comprehensive evidence base available, to find that there is no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present.



Based on eight new research papers, the SDC report gives a balanced examination of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Its research recognizes that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply. 



However, the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010). This must be set against the risks.



The report identifies five major disadvantages to nuclear power:


1. Long-term waste – no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long- term disposal of waste. 


2. Cost – the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there’s a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab. 


3. Inflexibility – nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever. 


4. Undermining energy efficiency – a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that’s required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency.


5. International security – if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.



On balance, the SDC finds that these problems outweigh the advantages of nuclear. However, the SDC does not rule out further research into new nuclear technologies and pursuing answers to the waste problem, as future technological developments may justify a re-examination of the issue.



SDC Chair, Jonathon Porritt, says:

“It’s vital that we get to grips with the complexity of nuclear power. Far too often, the debate is highly polarised, with NGOs claiming to see no advantages to nuclear at all, and the pro-nuclear lobby claiming that it’s the only solution available to us. 

“Instead of hurtling along to a pre-judged conclusion (which many fear the Government is intent on doing), we must look to the evidence. There’s little point in denying that nuclear power has benefits, but in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages. The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises – there simply isn’t one.”



Concluding with advice on a future energy strategy, the SDC report establishes that it is indeed possible to meet the UK’s energy needs without nuclear power. With a combination of a low-carbon innovation strategy and an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewables, the UK would become a leader in low-carbon technologies. This would enhance economic competitiveness whilst meeting the UK’s future energy needs. 



All reports, evidence papers and audio interviews can be download from our website at: <

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html
>

------------------->

GOVERNMENT NEGLECT OF RENEWABLES

------------------->

Muzzling of CSIRO scientists is part of a wider campaign
Mark Diesendorf
Canberra Times
Wednesday, 15 February 2006
<http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=458907&class=Your+say%2D+General>
ABC TV's Four Corners program and especially its reporter, Janine Cohen, should be congratulated on highlighting an undemocratic practice that has been going on for decades: the muzzling of CSIRO scientists from participating in public debate about greenhouse response strategies and energy alternatives. Monday night's program also revealed the intimate links between the big greenhouse gas producing industries, the Federal Government and public officials.
The Four Corners program is entirely consistent with previous exposes and my personal experience as a former Principal Research Scientist in CSIRO. As I see it, there is a consistent pattern of collusion to promote fossil fuels and suppress renewable energy, by public officials, government, those who control CSIRO and the coal, aluminium, oil, electricity generation and motor industries.
In 2004 the ABC's Investigative Unit obtained leaked meeting minutes, emails and memos which suggest that, behind the scenes, the fossil fuels industry influenced strongly the content of the Federal Government's Energy White Paper. The ABC reported that the Industry Minister had formed a secret advisory group of 12 companies, known as the Lower Emissions Technical Advisory Group (LETAG), to assist him on the development of policy.
The group worked directly with the Government to develop the energy plan. It was something that the Government was not keen to publicise. According to notes taken by one of the executives during a LETAG meeting, the Minister stressed the need for absolute confidentiality, saying that if the renewable energy industry found out, there would be a huge outcry.
The ABC also obtained the minutes of a LETAG meeting during which the general manager of the Energy Futures branch of Federal Government's Department of the Industry stated that the Government was seeking to adjust policy so that it supports and accommodates industry's direction. All this information was broadcast on ABC national radio on September 7, 2004 and the transcript is still available on www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1194166.htm.
In the 1990s, I was one of the representatives of the environmental NGOs on a group convened by the Australian Government to (nominally) advise on the development of a macro-economic model of greenhouse response called MEGABARE. Our advice was ignored and the structure of the completed model and the presentation of the results of the modelling were biased so that it exaggerated the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ignored the benefits.
MEGABARE was used widely by the Australian Government in international forums, for example during negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, to support the Government's position in opposition to international greenhouse abatement targets. In particular, MEGABARE and its successor, GIGABARE, were used as a basis for special pleading by the Australian Government that, as a "fossil fuel-dependent country", Australia's target should involve an increase in emissions.
Subsequently, it was revealed that our advisory group was a sham and that there was a secret Steering Committee convened by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics comprising mainly representatives of large fossil fuel producers and consumers. The fee for membership of this inner group was $A50,000 and ABARE did not reveal the source of the funding for its modelling in the publications of the results. In recruiting members of the Steering Committee, ABARE explicitly stated that "the benefit to your organisation of participating in this project" includes "influencing policy debate". A report on ABARE's activities was published by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 1998.
In the late 1970s, CSIRO was a world leader in research into solar hot water, solar-efficient building design and bioenergy. At that time I was leader of a small group of CSIRO and other scientists working in Canberra on the integration of wind power into electricity grids.
There were several indications that the energy policy of the CSIRO Executive was dominated by fossil fuel and nuclear interests. For instance, the CSIRO Executive refused to allow me to submit a grant application, which had the full support of the Chief of my Division, to the then National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council. I defied the Executive, the grant was awarded and our research was recognised internationally.
But a few years later, in the early 1980s, the Executive closed down all CSIRO research into renewable energy. Just to make sure that the wind power research was not continued "on the side", I was placed in a situation where I had little choice but to accept retrenchment.
CSIRO never recovered its eminence in renewable energy, but by the late 1990s it had recommenced a few modest projects in this forbidden field. Recently, the fossil fuel lobby, among those who control CSIRO, struck again. All renewable energy research was terminated again and the organisation's energy research was focused even more on the Federal Government's favoured "solution" to the enhanced greenhouse effect: the capture and burial of CO2 from coal-fired power stations, which is decades away from commercial application.
I suggest that the reason for the suppression of debate about greenhouse response and energy policy is simple. The producers and consumers of fossil fuels, and their supporters among public officials, the Federal Government and CSIRO, are well aware that we already have the technologies to commence a rapid transition to an energy future based on renewable energy and efficient energy, with gas playing the role as an important transitional fuel. The barriers to this transition are not primarily technological or economic, but rather are the immense political power of vested interests.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is currently senior lecturer in the Institute of Environmental Studies at University of NSW.

------------------->

NT NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP

------------------->

MEDIA RELEASE
March 30th, 2006
Opposition to ‘Nuclear Territory’ reaches critical mass

Following the website announcement by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) that Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) has won tender to assess the three proposed NT nuclear waste dump sites, environment and community groups in Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin have united in their opposition to a Commonwealth dump anywhere in the Northern Territory.

“If Parsons Brinckerhoff do their job properly, they will conclude that none of the proposed sites are suitable for a nuclear waste dump. The sites were chosen for political reasons as opposed to scientific criteria, and there is very strong community opposition throughout the whole Territory.” stated Vina Hornsby from Katherine No Dump Action Group.

Nat Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Campaigner at the Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice Springs, added, “In their Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed South Australian dump in 2003, PB failed to convince Australians that the dump was a safe and necessary project. Communities want radioactive waste to be responsibly managed.”

“We do not believe the NT dump proposal, which involves transporting waste thousands of kilometres and dumping it in the desert, can possibly fit PB’s own environmental criteria of  ‘safe and responsible disposal of wastes’.”

Environment Centre of the NT Coordinator Peter Robertson said, “As Parsons Brinckerhoff also conduct community consultation for projects, the NT opposition groups are demanding that the site assessment process begins with in-depth community consultation.”

“International best practice demands that communities be given the opportunity to shape all stages of a process such as this, and ultimately have the right to reject such a proposal.  If the Commonwealth thinks a dodgy assessment process with no meaningful consultation will get them their waste dump, they are wrong.”

------------------->

Check the fed government's daft promo video for the dump at:

<http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/images/managing_waste_pictures/Video_files/rwmfacility/rwmfacility_content.htm>

Anyone up for doing a parody of this nonsense ...? Could be as simple as a voice-over. Would need some way to make use of it, e.g. web or CDs. Maybe copyright issues.

------------------->

Last Update: Friday, March 31, 2006. 11:37am (AEDT)
Govt has picked nuclear dump site: NT Senator
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1605501.htm
Northern Territory Labor Senator Trish Crossin says the Federal Government has already chosen a site for its controversial radioactive waste dump.
The Commonwealth is considering three territory sites for the facility, two in central Australia, and one near Katherine.
Senator Crossin says she discovered yesterday that a company had been chosen to review the three proposed sites.
Ms Crossin says she believes the Federal Government is trying to build the dump in secret.
"I believe all along that the Government has been eyeing off Hart's Range," she said.
"Senator Scullion announced some funding for the Plenty Highway out there, I also understand that that site has been fenced or is about to be fenced.
"So I think all along this Government has pre-determined a site and what we're doing now is simply going through the process."

------------------->

PUSH TO OPEN HONEYMOON U MINE IN SA

------------------->

Another uranium mine on the way
Robin Bromby
April 01, 2006
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18670205%5E643,00.html
AUSTRALIA'S fourth uranium mine is likely to be in business by early 2008.

It is understood that the bankable feasibility study on the Honeymoon deposit in South Australia - the last hurdle a mining project has to jump before company approval - is close to being finished.
That will go to the board of the owner, Toronto-listed SXR Uranium One, in either June or July.
All the indications are that the project would be given the green light, the Weekend Australian has learned. Honeymoon would then join Olympic Dam, Beverley (both in South Australia) and Ranger (Northern Territory) as an operating uranium mine.
While an outcry can be expected from the anti-uranium lobby, there is little that can be done to block the project as it already has approvals, including a 20-year mining licence, from the South Australian Government dating from the previous Liberal administration in Adelaide. Honeymoon lies just inside the South Australian border, northwest of Broken Hill.
It has a resource of 4200 tonnes of U308 and the potential for exploration to increase that.
The project was for years held by Canada's Southern Cross Resources, which was seen by many observers as sitting on the project rather than advancing it.
But late last year South Africa's Aflease Gold and Uranium Resources made a reverse takeover of the Canadian miner, renaming it SXR Uranium One.
The company's new chief executive, Neal Froneman, is unlikely to brook any further delays to the development of Honeymoon, as he has a reputation as an aggressive, driven man determined to build a global mining company.
SXR is at present developing the Dominion uranium deposit in South Africa, with production due to begin in 2007. Dominion has a resource up to 66,500 tonnes of uranium.
Mr Froneman confirmed in January that the previous management at Southern Cross had been in discussion with Chinese interests keen to acquire a stake in Honeymoon.
But these were inconclusive. And the new management was having none of it.
"As far as Uranium One is concerned, Honeymoon is a core asset of our global company and is not up for sale," Mr Froneman said.
He said at the time that Honeymoon was one of the "very few fully permitted" uranium projects in the world.
A cost and engineering study in 2004 showed that Honeymoon would cost about $43 million to bring into production and the cash operating cost was $US12.40 a pound - compared to a present $US40.50/lb.
Honeymoon was discovered in 1972 during a period of intensive exploration for uranium in Australia and was initially owned by CSR and MIM.

------------------->

Uranium project ready to start
By Paul Starick
01apr06
www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18671327%5E910,00.html
AUSTRALIA's fourth uranium mine is on the brink of going ahead, with the Federal Government arguing this intensifies pressure on Labor's no-new-mines policy.

Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane yesterday said he understood the owners of South Australia's Honeymoon deposit were "close to making a decision" on whether to start mining.
Mr Macfarlane said Premier Mike Rann would likely be forced into a decision on a new mine before Labor's policy could be overturned at the party's national convention next year.
But Mr Rann has insisted the Honeymoon mine already has necessary approvals and, therefore, the no-new-mines policy does not affect South Australia.
Australia has 30 per cent of the world's known recoverable uranium reserves, the bulk of this being in SA. Two of the three operating uranium mines are in SA - Olympic Dam and Beverley - with the other being Ranger in the Northern Territory. A green light for Honeymoon's operation, combined with the planned $5 billion expansion of Olympic Dam, would place SA in a prime position to capitalise on the rising global demand for uranium as an energy source.
With growing expectation of a change in Labor policy next year, resource companies told an Adelaide conference yesterday that there could be at least another three new uranium mines operating in SA within the next six years. Honeymoon, discovered in 1972, is about 75km north-west of Broken Hill, 30km inside SA.
"We understand that the company (operating Honeymoon) is close to making a decision and will make a decision in regard to mining at Honeymoon sometime in the next six months," Mr Macfarlane told The Advertiser.
"That means Mike Rann may have to make an early decision about what he does about changing the Labor Party's three-mines policy, because Honeymoon is obviously going to make it four mines. "That makes an even bigger mockery of the Labor Party policy."
Mr Rann on Tuesday branded Labor's no-new-mines policy "anachronistic" and likely to change, but said the existing policy, forged in 1982, had helped the state by promoting the vast Olympic Dam mine.
"I want to make that abundantly clear, because all of the mines in SA - both current and prospective - have already received approval," he said.
Mines are regulated and licensed by a complex web of state and federal laws, which govern export, transport, environmental assessment, radioactive waste management, spillage reporting and security of nuclear materials.
Mr Macfarlane said he understood Honeymoon had met federal approvals. He tonight will welcome to Perth the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, who on Monday in Canberra will sign a nuclear safeguards agreement paving the way for uranium exports to China.
Marathon Resources chief executive officer John Santich said there was potential for at least three new uranium mines in SA within the next six years, provided Labor's policy changed.
"Over the next 20 years, I think there is a reasonable chance that there will be an enrichment and / or a nuclear power facility here in South Australia," he said. Meanwhile, environmental and medical groups have criticised a move to negotiate uranium trade with China.
In a statement, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Public Health Association of Australia said nothing could stop China making nuclear weapons with Australian uranium if they were able to buy it.
"China is not accountable and is not transparent," ACF campaigner David Noonan said.

------------------->

SWEDEN TO ABANDON FOSSIL FUELS AND NUKES

------------------->

International news </international_news/>, February 14, 2006
Sweden to abandon oil and nuclear power

Sweden is attempting to become the world's first oil-free country by 2020, without the use of nuclear power. According to the Swedish Government, "Energy policy should create the conditions for efficient and sustainable energy use and a cost-effective Swedish energy supply which has minimum negative impact on health, the environment and the climate. It should also facilitate the transition to an ecologically sustainable society."

Currently 45 per cent of Swedish electricity comes from nuclear power while 8 per cent comes from fossil fuels. In the last two years, however, Sweden has stopped importing electricity and has increased its production of hydroelectric power to compensate. A 1980 referendum called for the phasing out of nuclear power, allowing operating plants to operate only until the end of their technical life (assumed to be 25 years).

According to the Guardian "The Swedish government is working with carmakers Saab and Volvo to develop cars and lorries that burn ethanol and other biofuels." Public and private industries are being given grants to convert to other energy sources.

Sweden has decided to convert to renewable energy sources to prevent the problems of climate change and avoid the predicted high oil prices --problems similar to those Sweden faced in the 1970's. Brazil and Iceland have also developed plans to shift 80 to 100 per cent of the fuel used by their transport vehicles to renewable energy sources in the near future.

------------------->

CHERNOBYL APPEAL

Chernobyl:   Twentieth Anniversary - April 26th, 2006.
From People for Nuclear Disarmament, W.A.
P.O. Box 37, Maylands, WA 6931

Dear Anti-Nuclear  Friends:

Let’s ensure that Chernobyl Day is commemorated in some way, wherever we live. Remember those still living the ghastly effect of the world’s worst nuclear accident – yet.

Since 1997, PND has been in touch with an amazing environmental group, called Viola,  in the Bryansk region of Ukraine/Russia.  It was from there that we found Natalia Dikun and Andrei Khryshov who came to Australia for the Stop Uranium Pilgrimage, which some of you may recall.   Viola is mostly concerned with education of the public about the ongoing dangers of radiation in their highly contaminated zone.

 Our practical way of helping has been to send money for radiation monitoring equipment, which they teach families, schools and community groups to use. The best way to get the equivalent of $40US per counter is via Western Union.  As you know, international financial transactions cost money.  If anyone does a fundraiser, or would like to donate from personal or group funds to assist Viola, PND/WA will volunteer to be a depository for such monies, and to send it one lump sum.  We feel confident  that money from overseas supporters is used very wisely.  It also has a big psychological impact – to know that they’re not forgotten, is important to the people in Bryansk.

Our bank account # with Commonwealth Bank is 0661 3000 903 512.
Please email our treasurer, Rob Mann on <robertmann@bigpond.com> if you deposit money, saying how much and from whom, and adding a snail mail address so that a receipt can be forwarded.  Otherwise, please send cheques to the above address made out to PND/WA.

Best wishes in your ongoing campaigns – no shortage of tasks, is there?

Yours sincerely, towards peace and justice,

Jo Vallentine.
For PND/WA.
08 9272 4252 (phone & fax).
13 March, 2006.

------------------->

ROXBY WASTE PROBLEMS REVEALED

------------------->

Waste fears at uranium mine
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
March 10, 2006
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18409774%255E2702,00.html>

THE Olympic Dam uranium mine needs urgent improvements in radioactive waste management and monitoring, according to audit reviews.

 As owner BHP Billiton seeks state and federal government approval for a four-fold, $5 billion expansion at Olympic Dam, concerns about the mine's tailings storage facilities have been raised in the last two audit reviews provided to the Rann Government.
The reviews, obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws, call on government regulators to "encourage" changes to the deposit of tailings, a radioactive slurry that is a by-product of uranium mining production. More than 10 million tonnes of tailings a year are placed in ponds near the mine.
The review noted radioactive slurry was deposited "partially off" a lined area of a storage pond, which it believed contributed to greater seepage and rising ground water levels.
The review also criticises the lack of an agreed, accurate formula to determine the rate of evaporation of tailings and how much leaks into the ground.
Consultants Advanced Geomechanics conducted the reviews of the tailings storage facilities in 2002 and 2003 when the mine was owned by WMC Resources. In a September 2004 letter to state Department of Primary Industries and Resources, Advanced Geomechanics consultant Richard Jewell urged "strong representation to the operators on these issues to make the changes".
In April last year, Mr Jewell noted cells within a tailings pond covered 70ha, more than three times greater than a key performance indicator recommended.
"This is an issue of real concern and requires the implementation of urgent remedial measures," Mr Jewell warns in the letter. He agrees with the auditors' general conclusion that the tailings facility was "well managed".
The tailings dams were the subject of a 1996 parliamentary inquiry after previous owners Western Mining Corporation reported in 1994 that five million cubic litres had leaked from them over two years.
"They (the mine owners) have a continuing problem with managing radioactive tailings and a continuing problem with seepage of tailings," said Australian Conservation Foundation official David Noonan.
Mr Noonan said the audit reviews showed the mine "had failed even the most basic monitoring practices".
Mr Jewell yesterday confirmed the 2004 auditors had again raised the tailings problems. "But in general from my experience the management at Olympic Dam is as good as I've seen anywhere in the world," he said.

------------------->

Unpublished
Roxby uranium tailings leak

What a disgrace that The Australian was forced to submit a Freedom of Information application to obtain BHP Billiton's consultant's reports into the mismanagement of its radioactive waste tailings dump at the Roxby Downs uranium/copper mine in SA ('Waste fears at uranium mine', March 10).

The radioactive dump is staggering in its proportions - 70 million tonnes, growing at 10 million tonnes annually, with no plans for its long-term management.

Both the mismanagement of the Roxby mine, and the secrecy surrounding it, are in part a product of the indefensible legal privileges the mine enjoys under the Roxby Indenture Act. The Act provides a raft of exemptions from the Environmental Protection Act, the Water Resources Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

If BHP Billiton will not voluntarily relinquish the legal privileges, the SA Labor government ought to repeal them in keeping with Premier Mike Rann's recent commitment to apply the "strictest environmental standards" to the mine.

Jim Green

------------------->

NUCLEAR POWER - SAFE AS HOUSES. NOT.

------------------->

Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water
By MATTHEW L. WALD
March 17, 2006
<www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>
WASHINGTON, March 16 — With power cleaner than coal and cheaper than natural gas, the nuclear industry, 20 years past its last meltdown, thinks it is ready for its second act: its first new reactor orders since the 1970's.
A leak was found last year at Indian Point 2 in Buchanan, N.Y.
But there is a catch. The public's acceptance of new reactors depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground.
Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells.
In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.
In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the Hudson River.
Indian Point officials say the quantities are tiny, compared with the amount of tritium that Indian Point is legally allowed to release into the river. Officials said they planned to find out how much was leaking and declare the leak a "monitored release pathway."
Nils J. Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he would withhold judgment on the proposal until after it reached his agency, but he added, "They're going to have to fix it."
This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of nuclear power safety arrangements, said recently that in the past 10 years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. It called for a systematic program to ensure there were no more leaks.
Tami Branum, who lives close to the Braidwood reactor and owns property in the nearby village of Godley, said in a telephone interview, "It's just absolutely horrible, what we're trying to deal with here." Ms. Branum and her children, 17-year-old twin girls and a 7-year-old boy, drink only bottled water, she said, but use municipal water for everything else. "We're bathing in it, there's no way around it," she said.
Ms. Branum said that her property in Godley was worth about $50,000 and that she wanted to sell it, but that no property was changing hands now because of the spill.
A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003. No well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards, he said.
Mr. Diaz of the regulatory agency, speaking to a gathering of about 1,800 industry executives and government regulators last week, said utilities were planning to apply for 11 reactor projects, with a total of 17 reactors. The Palo Verde reactor was the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually built.
As the agency prepares to review license applications for the first time in decades, it is focusing on "materials degradation," a catch-all term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear plants are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be patched or replaced as required, for the industry to have a chance at building new plants, experts say.
Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long.
But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak.
And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium and other materials, as they tear the plant down.
After years of flat employment levels, the industry is preparing to hire hundreds of new engineers. Luis A. Reyes, the executive director for operations at the regulatory commission, told the industry gathering last week, "We'll take your résumé in hard copy, online, whatever you can do," eliciting laughter from an audience heavy with executives of reactor operators and companies that want to build new ones.

------------------->

Toxic truck leak a radiation near-miss
February 22, 2006
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18231965%5E2703,00.html>
LONDON: A nuclear waste company must pay pound stg. 400,000 ($942,000) in fines and costs for allowing a lethal beam of toxic radiation to escape from a casket during a 210km road trip.
The radiation leak, which could have endangered thousands of people, was the result of a series of mistakes caused by a culture of carelessness and arrogance at the privatised company, a court heard.
AEA Technology, formerly part of the British Atomic Energy Authority, was lambasted by a judge yesterday for flawed management practices and the "cavalier indifference" to safety shown by two employees.
They used the wrong packaging equipment and failed to carry out essential safety checks before the radioactive cobalt-60 was taken on a 3 1/2 hour truck journey from West Yorkshire in northeast England across to Cumbria in the northwest.
By "pure chance", the pencil-thin beam of escaping gamma rays - up to 1000 times more powerful than a "very high dose rate" - was directed downwards and no one came into direct contact with it. Had the beam travelled horizontally, anyone within 280m of the low-level trailer would have been at risk of contamination.
Radiation experts from the Health and Safety Executive said that anyone exposed to the beam could have exceeded the legal dose within seconds and suffered burns within minutes.
One scientist has estimated that someone standing a metre from the source and in the direct path of the rays would have been dead in two hours.
Judge Norman Jones fined AEAT pound stg. 250,000 and ordered the company to pay more than pound stg. 150,000 costs.
He blamed "poor management" at Safeguard International, an AEAT subsidiary that won a pound stg. 245,000 contract to take radioactive materials from hospitals in Leeds to a waste processing plant at Windscale.
One of the trips, in March 2002, involved a radioactive source removed from a radiological machine used for the treatment of cancer patients.
The judge said the specialist 2.6-tonne packaging used by the company was "wholly inappropriate". It failed to prevent lateral movement by the cobalt-60, which was inside a tubular flask, and a protective shield plug that should have been under the flask was missing.
Particular criticism was directed by the judge at Mark Ord, the manager responsible for the day-to-day running of Safeguard, and Paul Gilbert, an employee who was in charge of the March 2002 operation.
AEAT pleaded guilty to six criminal breaches of health and safety legislation and regulations governing the transportation of radioactive materials.

------------------->

Exelon kept leaks quiet, files show
By Hal Dardick
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 19, 2006
<www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0603190212mar19,1,2262645.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true>

Exelon officials took several steps that for years kept the public in the dark about radioactive tritium spills at a Will County nuclear power plant and the groundwater contamination the spills caused, public records obtained by the Tribune show.

Recent company disclosures about four tritium spills between 1996 and 2003 at Braidwood Generating Station came only after the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency pressured Exelon Nuclear to test for contamination, following prodding from the plant's neighbors.

The disclosures of spills triggered lawsuits last week by the Will County state's attorney, the Illinois attorney general and neighbors of the plant accusing the company of not being forthcoming.

The public documents show Exelon Nuclear officials in 2001 and 2002 opposed public discussion of tritium and the release of documents about tritium spills. They also opposed legislation to mandate groundwater monitoring at nuclear plants and a permit review that led to discovery of the contamination, the records show.

"It's apparent that this all points to obfuscation of radioactive material releases at the Braidwood plant," said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group that has obtained many of the records independently.

Thomas O'Neill, vice president of regulatory and legal affairs at Exelon Nuclear, chafed at such claims.

"When you are talking about extending the life of your plant and possibly building new nuclear plants and looking at the whole environment, it absolutely makes no sense why anyone in this company, the company as a whole, would do anything but be open, honest, candid, forthright and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations," O'Neill said.

The chain of events that led to the belated disclosures started with plant neighbor Bob Keca. On Nov. 6, 2000, he noticed an expanding pool of water covering Exelon property that surrounds his home on three sides.

It had seeped under his fence and filled a ditch in front of his house, said Keca, who called the Illinois EPA and Exelon.

Exelon officials told Keca there was "nothing to be worried about from a health and safety perspective, but [the water] does have traces of radioactivity in it," plant spokesman Neal Miller said this month. Recent tests show Keca's well is not contaminated, he added.

But Keca, after learning specifics about the contamination in recent months, is fearful for the health of his family. He remembers hearing from Miller in 2000 that there was nothing to worry about.

"We drank the water," Keca recently told local officials, referring to water from the shallow well at his home. "We bathed in the water. We swam in the water. They never told us."

Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear generation, can enter the body through ingestion, absorption or inhalation. Exposure can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage. State health and regulatory agency officials have said the contamination near Braidwood poses no threat to public health, but some critics of federal tritium standards debate that.

Exelon estimated 3 million gallons of water containing tritium spilled in 2000. Exelon did quickly report the spill to the Illinois EPA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Exelon documents indicate the company also notified the Will County Emergency Services Disaster Agency director and Reed Township highway commissioner.

Like Keca, the local officials were told there was no health risk, despite traces of radioactivity, Miller said.

Exelon says most of the contamination in the water came from another 3 million-gallon spill in 1998, because nothing was done to clean up that spill. ComEd, which is now part of Exelon, built and ran the Braidwood plant until late 2000. Additional spills in 1996 and 2003 were smaller.

All the spills resulted from malfunctioning valves on an underground pipe, called a blowdown line, that carries water with tritium to the Kankakee River, where it is legally dumped.

After a leak of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel at the plant, also in 2000, officials from the town of Godley requested an Illinois EPA hearing on Exelon's blowdown-line permit by objecting to its renewal.

In January 2001, Exelon Nuclear senior environmental analyst John Petro e-mailed to colleagues: "Our ultimate goal must be to get the village to [withdraw] their objection to the renewal of Braidwood's [blowdown-line permit]."

Illinois EPA officials held the hearing in early 2005. As part of its review, the agency learned about elevated tritium levels in a ditch between the plant and Godley. It told Exelon to determine the extent of groundwater contamination, which led to the recent spill disclosures.

(Article continues.)

------------------->

URANIUM EXPLORATION IN AUSTRALIA

------------------->

Labor proposes new world nuclear watchdog
Dennis Shanahan and Verity Edwards
March 31, 2006
<www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18661436%255E2702,00.html>
LABOR has proposed a new worldwide diplomatic group to limit nuclear proliferation, relying on Australia's influence as the world's second-biggest uranium supplier.

 The new diplomatic caucus would be led by Australia and include nuclear suppliers and users to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Labor's resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, has proposed the move as part of a push within the ALP to modernise its uranium policy and ensure Australian uranium is used safely.
"Australia's role in the global nuclear cycle as a responsible citizen of the world does not stop with exporting our uranium," Mr Ferguson will say in an address to be delivered to a uranium conference in Adelaide today.
"This is the future of Australian nuclear policy. Responsible leadership as a nuclear supplier. Active diplomacy in the United Nations, a strong alliance with the United States and a comprehensive engagement with the region."
While cautiously welcoming the new US-India deal on nuclear technology, Mr Ferguson will state that Australia must stick to its agreement not to sell uranium to countries that have not signed the NPT.
Mr Ferguson is one of the leading Labor figures calling for a nuclear debate as the ALP prepares to drop its 1980s policy of allowing only three uranium mines in Australia.
While Labor is divided on the three mines policy, small uranium mining companies predict an boom driven by the massive expansion at Roxby Downs and a slew of smaller but highly economic deposits. One small uranium miner claims that at least $15billion worth of uranium is sitting underground in Western Australia alone.
Nova Energy chairman, Tim Sugden, said the Carpenter state Government's ban on developing new uranium mines prevented billions of dollars' worth of the resource being tapped in Western Australia. His company has valued its Wiluna uranium deposit at $1billion.
"We believe you could multiply that figure by 15 times if all the potential projects in WA could be developed," Mr Sugden told the 2006 Uranium Conference in Adelaide yesterday.
He said allowing companies to mine in Western Australia would increase Australia's production by 50 per cent.
About 140 companies are exploring for uranium in Australia, a dramatic increase on the 12 expeditions that were digging for ore five years ago.

------------------->

$1m hunt for more uranium
Chris Pippos
19mar06
<www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18511295%5E2682,00.html>

A SYDNEY company is on the brink of launching another huge uranium exploration in South Australia, spanning almost 4000 sq km.

Located at seven sites in the north of the state, in the vicinity of and surrounding Olympic Dam, the survey and drilling exploration may begin as early as April, according to Uranium Exploration Australia Ltd.
The size of the exploration area is further evidence of a uranium boom in SA, symbolised by the expansion of Olympic Dam and the growing number of companies circling the area for uranium.
"I think we are the second or third largest tenement holder in Olympic Dam," company managing director David Hawley said about the area to be explored.
The company would spend about $1 million over two years to search for uranium, hoping the ALP nationally changes its position and allows more uranium mines in SA.
It was a "fait accompli" the three mines policy would be overturned at the party's 2007 national conference, Mr Hawley said.
"There's a lot of really big overseas mining companies that would like to get in," he said.
UEA still needed to negotiate a native title mining agreement before starting its exploration.
Recent figures show 25 Australian and international companies have 86 uranium exploration licences in SA – an increase of about 100 per cent in three years.
Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive Phil Sutherland said the size of UEA's exploration highlighted the "explosion of uranium activity in the past year or two".
"It would have to be up there with one of the larger ones," Mr Sutherland said.
"They have certainly taken up a large area and that would indicate they are very, very serious and they are prepared to put a lot of money into the exploration effort." SA has 41 per cent of the world's low-cost economic reserves of uranium, with most exported to a range of countries, including Canada and the US, for power generation.
Latest Bureau of Statistics figures show the amount spent on all mineral exploration in SA has more than doubled in recent months.
Almost $40 million was spent on exploration in the December quarter, compared with $17.2 million in the previous quarter.
SA also had the largest increase in such expenditure nationally over the same period.
The boom coincides with negotiations between Australia and China to sell large quantities of uranium to China.

------------------->

Massive support for state venture
By CAMERON ENGLAND
07mar06
<www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18371719%5E913,00.html>
SOUTH Australian uranium stocks have never been hotter, with the state's largest-ever uranium exploration start-up company yesterday announcing strong support for its imminent stock exchange listing.

But Adelaide's growing group of uranium exploration companies still face legislative uncertainty, with the caretaker Labor Government still committed to the federal Labor Party's "no new mines" policy on uranium.
Minotaur Exploration and Oxiana yesterday announced that the initial public offer of shares in its $36 million uranium joint venture, Toro Energy, had closed early after receiving strong support.
The offer was closed four days early after applications for $52.5 million in stock, well above the $18 million Toro was seeking, were received.
Minotaur managing director Derek Carter, speaking from a mining conference in Toronto, Canada, said the support had been overwhelming.
The Toro announcement caps a big week in uranium exploration in the state. Last week Monax Mining and InterMet Resources released new details of paleochannels - the ancient river beds associated with uranium mineralisation - on their tenements.
And yesterday Marathon Resources said it had discovered "significant uranium mineralisation" in drill cores from its Mt Gee uranium deposit, which had been drilled years ago but not assayed.
Adelaide is now home to six uranium exploration companies, most of which have listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in the past two years. Hindmarsh Resources, which listed in July, will likely soon become part of Canadian company Mega Uranium, after a friendly takeover bid in January, and InterMet Resources is currently raising money ahead of an imminent ASX listing.
But despite the State Government making all the right noises about uranium exploration, it is still committed to the federal Labor Party's no-new-mines policy, which was again endorsed at the Labor Party's state convention in October last year.
Deputy Premier Kevin Foley has told Parliament he wants the no-new-mines policy scrapped, and the Rann Government has been supportive of the proposed doubling in size of BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam uranium mine in the state's north.
A spokesman for Mineral Resources Minister Paul Holloway said yesterday he also supported a change to the federal policy and would seek to do this at the next federal ALP policy convention early next year.
But Liberal Party mining spokesman Mitch Williams said the Government was hypocritical, because it was funding uranium exploration through the PACE mining subsidy scheme while remaining opposed to any new mines being started.
"There are a number of dedicated uranium explorers in South Australia now and a number getting off the ground and everybody expects that we will find more uranium in South Australia," Mr Williams said. "The only way that they can be mined is if there is a Liberal goverment both in South Australia and in Canberra."
Mr Williams said investing in a junior explorer was a high-risk decision in the first place. "When you add to that the risk that it may not be allowed to do anything about a uranium find, that's a significant risk," he said.
South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive Phil Sutherland said he was confident the Labor Government, if returned at the March 18 election, would allow new mines to be opened.
"The State Government, by their actions, have made it quite clear that they will put the people and state of South Australia before party politics," he said.

------------------->

GOVERNMENT PRESSURE ON MIRARR RE JABILUKA

------------------->

Owners speak out about Kakadu's uranium
By Lindsay Murdoch, Darwin
March 7, 2006
<www.theage.com.au/news/national/owners-speak-out-about-kakadus-uranium/2006/03/06/1141493611298.html>

THE Howard Government has used a native title claim to pressure Aboriginal owners to approve mining of the massive Jabiluka uranium deposit in Kakadu National Park, it was claimed yesterday.
The traditional Mirarr owners said the Government had indicated they would be given ownership of Jabiru, a mining town in Kakadu, if they reversed their opposition to mining Jabiluka. At today's soaring prices, the site — the world's richest undeveloped uranium deposit — is worth more than $10 billion
"Its outrageous. We are sick and tired of having the mining of Jabiluka and the future of Jabiru mentioned in the same breath," said Andy Ralph, the chief executive of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the Mirarr people.
The Mirarr, who have the right to veto mining at Jabiluka, have a native title claim over Jabiru, a town of about 1100 that services the Ranger uranium mine in the park.
Greg Hunt, a Victorian Liberal MP with federal ministerial responsibility for Kakadu, said last night that Jabiluka's future was "a matter for the Mirarr people". "There is no question that in policy and in law they have binding control over what occurs at Jabiluka and that will not change," Mr Hunt said.
Mr Ralph told The Age he had decided to publicly reveal the attempt by several federal ministers to link Jabiru with Jabiluka because the Mirarr people are coming under increasing pressure over Jabiluka. "The pressure to mine Jabiluka will become enormous in the years to come," he said. "The time has come to speak out about some of the pressures that are being applied to the Mirarr people."
Mr Ralph said the federal ministers had " implied" over a number of years to Mirarr representatives that "we will give you Jabiru, just give us Jabiluka".
The Mirarr people, led by Yvonne Margarula, have strongly opposed mining of Jabiluka, telling a parliamentary inquiry last year that they were worried about the impact of any future mining on their land. "My mob continue to respectfully say 'no thanks', we don't want mining at Jabiluka and I can't see it happening," Mr Ralph said.
Late last year the Howard Government declared the Northern Territory open for expanded uranium mining, saying companies could exploit more than $12 billion of known deposits, including Jabiluka, as long as they won the support of traditional owners and met environmental concerns.
The NT Labor Government, which regulates mines in the Territory, has effectively handed the responsibility for new uranium mines to Canberra.
Rio-Tinto-owned Energy Resources Australia Limited has not given up hope of mining Jabiluka, despite abandoning work at the site a decade ago after anti-mine protesters had blockaded it. The company's Ranger mine is scheduled to cease operation in 2014, putting the future of Jabiru in doubt.
Mr Ralph said the Mirarr want the 13-square-kilometre township area returned to Aboriginal ownership. He said that when Ranger closes, the town would lose most of its population and would become a small, tourism-oriented settlement.
"They are saying the town will go from having 1100 to 300," he said. "They are saying instead of having two doctors we will have none. Instead of having 15 school teachers we will have five. It's a threat."

------------------->

RADIOACTIVE RACISM IN AUSTRALIA

------------------->

Collection of articles on radioactive racism in Australia -
at: <www.foe.org.au/nc/nc_nuke.htm#submissions>
Or direct download: <www.foe.org.au/download/radioactiveracism.doc>

And article in upcoming Autumn 2006 issue of FoE mag Chain Reaction.

Old issues of Chain Reaction:
<http://www.foe.org.au/mainfiles/cr.htm>

Subscriptions to Chain Reaction
One year (four issues) $22

Two years (eight issues) $40


Please email us your details: <foe@foe.org.au
> or send cheque/money order to:
 Chain Reaction,
P.O. Box 222,
Fitzroy, 3065

(Please note: make cheques for subscriptions out to Chain Reaction).
To pay by credit card, please call the FoE campaigns office in Melbourne: 03 9419 8700
To support Chain Reaction via an on-line donation, please visit:
https://egive.org.au/egive/payments/new_payment.aspx?id=38
Advertising
For advertising rates and inquires, contact <cam.walker@foe.org.au

>
 

Return to top
Return to contents 1