Category: Uncategorised

Jim Green

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

It has been a sad and sorry year in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture. Three years after the March 2011 nuclear disaster at the TEPCO plant and Japan is nowhere near recovering.

ABC journalist Mark Willacy neatly described the recurring pattern: “At first TEPCO denies there’s a problem at the crippled Fukushima plant. Then it becomes obvious to everyone that there is a problem, so the company then acknowledges the problem and makes it public. And finally one of its hapless officials is sent out to apologise to the cameras.”

In February 2013, TEPCO President Naomi Hirose apologised for false information which led a parliamentary panel to cancel an on-site inspection of the Fukushima plant. TEPCO even managed to lie in its website apology according to the Asahi Shimun newspaper.

In March 2013, a rat found its way into an electrical switchbox resulting in a power outage that left 8,800 nuclear fuel assemblies without fresh cooling water for 21−29 hours. TEPCO delayed notifying the Nuclear Regulation Authority and local municipal officials about the incident. “We sincerely apologise. We are deeply regretful over the delay in reporting the incident and for causing anxiety to residents,” said TEPCO representative Yoshiyuki Ishizaki.

On March 29, TEPCO belatedly acknowledged that the company’s failings were responsible for the Fukushima disaster. Hirose apologised: “Our safety culture, skills, and ability were all insufficient. We must humbly accept our failure to prevent the accident, which we should have avoided by using our wisdom and human resources to be better prepared.”

In April, TEPCO discovered that at least three of seven underground storage pools were seeping thousands of litres of radioactive water into the soil. Hirose travelled to Fukushima to apologise for the leaks.

TEPCO acknowledged a further five leaks and spills of contaminated water in April, including a spill of around 110,000 litres from a polyethylene-lined tank (TEPCO waited two days before informing the Nuclear Regulation Authority about this spill). Some of the leaks were continuing because TEPCO was unable to locate their source. Hirose apologised for the fiasco: “We have been causing tremendous trouble. We are very sorry.”

After finding high levels of tritium and strontium in an observation well in June, TEPCO withheld the information for nearly three weeks. TEPCO executive Akio Komori visited the Fukushima prefectural government office on June 19 to apologise.

In July, it was revealed that TEPCO knew about radioactive groundwater leaks into the ocean a month before it publicly disclosed the problem. TEPCO’s general manager Masayuki Ono apologised: “We would like to offer our deep apology for causing grave worries for many people, especially for people in Fukushima.” TEPCO President Naomi Hirose also apologised: “We’ve been trying to reform, but we repeated the same mistake. Obviously, our effort is not enough. We are really sorry.”

Also in July, Hirose apologised to two local mayors for seeking permission from the Nuclear Regulation Agency to restart reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant without first consulting local officials: “We sincerely apologise for your having had cause to criticise us for making hasty and sloppy decisions without giving considerations to local opinions.” In October, Niigata Prefecture Governor Hirohiko Izumida − who effectively holds a veto over reactor restarts at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa − said TEPCO must address its “institutionalised lying” before it can expect to restart reactors.

In early August, TEPCO apologised to residents in Fukushima prefecture, the surrounding region and the larger public for causing inconveniences, worries and trouble arising from contaminated water leaks.

At an August 21 media conference, TEPCO executive Zengo Aizawa apologised for the latest tank leak and said: “The problem of contaminated water is the largest crisis facing management and we will place priority on dealing with the issue.” At an August 26 media conference, Hirose apologised: “Contaminated water has been leaking from tanks. What should never happen, has been happening, and we deeply apologise for the repeated worries that we have caused. We are very sorry.”

On August 29, Hirose apologised to fishermen whose livelihoods have been affected by radioactive pollution from the Fukushima plant. But Hiroshi Kishi, head of a federation of more than 1,000 fisheries cooperatives nationwide, said his members had no faith in TEPCO’s ability to fix the mess it had created. “We think your company’s management of contaminated water has collapsed,” he said. “We are extremely worried as it’s creating an immeasurable impact on our country’s fishing industry and will continue to do so in the future.”

In September, Hirose offered a blanket apology: “We deeply apologise for the greater anxiety caused by the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.”

Also in September, Dale Klein, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and current chair of TEPCO’s ‘Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee’, told TEPCO that it was stumbling from “crisis to crisis” and that: “It appears that you are not keeping the people of Japan informed. These actions indicate that you don’t know what you are doing … you do not have a plan and that you are not doing all you can to protect the environment and the people.” Hirose apologised: “I apologise for not being able to live up to your expectations.”

In October, Hirose apologised to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) for sloppy standards at Fukushima, as yet another problem with radiation-polluted water emerged. “The problems have been caused by a lack of basic checks,” NRA secretary general Katsuhiko Ikeda told Hirose. “I can’t help but say that standards of on-site management are extremely low at Fukushima Daiichi.”

In November, Hirose apologised to the estimated 150,000 local residents who have been forced to leave their homes due to radiation levels, and may in some cases never be able to return: “I have visited Fukushima many times, met the evacuees, the fishing union, the farmers, many people whose businesses have been damaged very much. I feel very sorry for them.”

In December, secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party Shigeru Ishiba apologised after describing citizens participating in anti-nuclear protests outside the Japanese parliament as “engaging in an act of terrorism by causing excessive noise”. People were protesting against disgraceful new secrecy legislation which will deter nuclear whistleblowers from coming forward and deter journalists from reporting such information.

In December, another blanket apology from TEPCO President Naomi Hirose: “We deeply apologise to all residents around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as the broader society, for the concern and anxiety that has arisen on account of the accident at the power station.”

Hirose began 2014 with a New Year’s speech in which he acknowledged that TEPCO was incapable of adequately dealing with problems in 2013, and was continually responding late to issues as they arose.

Hirose said TEPCO will do its best “not to have any problems” in 2014. Fat chance.

Nuclear apologists

Sadly, nuclear apologists have been slow to apologise for peddling misinformation. Adelaide-based nuclear advocate and conspiracy theorist Geoff Russell and Adelaide University’s Barry Brook insist that the Fukushima disaster was “deathless” despite a growing number of scientific studies giving the lie to that claim.

Last year the World Health Organisation released a report which concluded that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).

Estimates of the long-term cancer death toll include:

• a Stanford University study that estimates “an additional 130 (15-1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24-1800) cancer-related morbidities”;
• an estimate of 1,000-3,000 cancer deaths by physicist Ed Lyman (based on an estimated collective whole-body radiation dose of 3.2 million person-rem to the population of Japan); and
• an estimate of around 3,000 cancer deaths from radiation biologist and independent consultant Dr Ian Fairlie.

Indirect deaths must also be considered, especially those resulting from the failure of TEPCO and government authorities to develop and implement adequate emergency response procedures. A September 2012 Editorial in Japan Times noted that 1,632 deaths occurred during or after evacuation from the triple-disaster; and nearly half (160,000) of the 343,000 evacuees were dislocated specifically because of the nuclear disaster. A January 2013 article in The Lancet notes that “the fact that 47% of disaster-related deaths were recognised in Fukushima prefecture alone indicates that the earthquake-triggered nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power plant caused extreme hardship for local residents.”

In Fukushima Prefecture, 1,656 people have died as a result of stress and other illnesses caused by the 2011 disaster according to information compiled by police and local governments and reported in February 2014. That number exceeds the 1,607 people in Fukushima Prefecture who were drowned by the tsunami or killed by the preceding earthquake.

“The biggest problem is the fact that people have been living in temporary conditions for so long,” said Hiroyuki Harada, a Fukushima official dealing with victim assistance, “People have gone through dramatic changes of their environment. As a result, people who would not have died are dying.”

The claim by Barry Brook and Geoff Russell that Fukushima was “deathless” has no basis in truth. They ought to take a leaf from Naomi Hirose’s book, bow deeply and apologise.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia. A referenced version of this article is available from jim.green@foe.org.au

Gem Romuld

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

Idinthakarai is a beautiful fishing village flanked by coconut and banana trees on one side and ocean on the other. Chooks, goats and cows roam the streets or stand tethered out the front of colourful houses whose front walls proudly proclaim who married who.

Festival music blares across the town of 15,000 people, fish are laid out to dry and women sit in doorways rolling beedis. Among the banana and coconut trees, slender wind turbines catch the breeze while on the flipside, perched on the ocean’s edge is the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP). While the Indian Government insists it is a measure of progress and power, viewed from Idinthakarai the KKNPP’s distinctive white and orange domes symbolise a long and anguished struggle.

I first heard about the KKNPP in 2012, when news reached Australia of over two thousand fisherfolk taking to the sea in their boats in protest, blocking the access channel to the plant. Situated near the southernmost tip of India in the state of Tamil Nadu, the KKNPP stares down the beach at the heart of the movement, the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy based in their proudly dubbed “Republic of Idinthakarai”. The KKNPP was first planned and agreed between the Indian Government and the Soviet Union in 1988. The subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union held up the project for a decade, before its revival in the late 1990s and the beginning of construction in 2002.

Opposition has always existed, flaring up in the aftermath of Fukushima and with the spread of information about radiation contamination and its effect on health. The effects of radiation on health are well documented in India, courtesy of existing nuclear projects and in particular the uranium mine at Jadugoda, in the northern state of Jharkhand. Jadugoda has been mining uranium for over 40 years, enough time for radiation to damage genetic codes and work its way up the food chain via leaking tailings dams and the unlucky river into which they flow.

The people living around the KKNPP are acutely aware of their vulnerability. Ziggy Switkowski’s absurdist words ring in my ears, spoken three days after the Fukushima disaster: “the best place to be whenever there’s an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well” … but it’s not just the fear of disaster that enrages the local community; it’s also the quality of the construction itself and the effect of the plant’s discharge on fish. The fisherfolk are worried about the effect of the hot water discharge from the plant on the reproductive cycles of the fish that form the basis of their livelihoods.

Another catalyst for concern is the prosecution in Russia of the procurement director of ZiO-Podolsk, a Russian company supplying crucial components to nuclear power plants including the KKNPP, for corruption and fraud. Shutov, the procurement director, has been charged for purchasing low-grade materials and selling them as high-grade materials for components and parts. Even the official story of the plant is littered with defects and flaws and its “immediate commissioning” has been announced and re-announced so many times that it’s become a running joke with Idinthakarai residents.

The KKNPP has claimed several times to be generating power, but the locals beg to differ. The ‘tsunami colony’, a settlement of people displaced by the Asian tsunami of 2004, sits 500m from the plant. They keep a vigilant watch for steam, noise and any of the signs that they observed when it was running tests: nothing. The KKNPP is obviously troubled but the real concern is the determination of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd to get it working.

Repression

The full force of the government, the media and the police are behind the effort to stifle resistance. Bedazzling in its complexity and sophistication, nuclear energy has become a tool for the Indian establishment to demonstrate its modernity and progress. Nuclear energy is apparently vital to the national project and anyone opposed to it is therefore classified as “anti-national”.

But, despite suffering repression and slander, resistance to the KKNPP is alive and well. If the church bells ring in Idinthakarai, the fisherfolk come in from the sea and all the townspeople gather for a meeting or to take their grievances down the beach towards the nuclear plant. The protests against the KKNPP are strictly non-violent but police have responded with full force to intimidate and suppress the movement. There in the so-called “world’s largest democracy”, fisherfolk defending their livelihoods in peaceful opposition to a nuclear power plant are charged with “sedition” and “war against the Indian state” among many other political offences.

The local authorities have failed to comply with the Supreme Court verdict to drop thousands of false charges laid on protesters. So they are flies stuck in legalistic honey, some with as many as 190 charges against them, unable to leave the “Republic of Idinthakarai” for fear of arrest beyond the safe haven of the town. One of the movement leaders, Pushparayan, was not even permitted to travel to another village to attend his father’s funeral. He hadn’t seen his father for two years as he was under ‘village arrest’, and was denied a proper farewell.

People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy headquarters sit opposite a majestic Catholic church with a large sheltered space for protest meetings. The thatched shelter is hung with info-sheets and photos, graphically depicting the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl and the deformed children of Jadugoda town, which hosts India’s 45-year-old uranium mine. Banners also line the space, bearing signatures and faces pledging solidarity and commitment to shutting down the KKNPP.

There’s a board showing the number of days the relay protest fast has been running. It reached 900 days on January 31. Behind that board is a gold-framed picture bearing four faces − the people that have paid for dissent with their lives. Two people died during protests and two while held in police custody for protest charges because they were denied their medications. Alongside these horrific events of state repression runs the multi-faceted war of attrition, including the confiscation of passports, and the police harassment of the women of Idinthakarai.

The communities around the KKNPP have empowered several men, including S.P. Udayakumar and M. Pushparayan, to act as leaders and public spokespeople for the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, however it is generally acknowledged that the steely determination of the women is what keeps the movement going. Sundari, an Idinthakarai local, spoke of the abuses she suffered in prison, and the openness with which the police admitted that they were making her an example with the intention of deterring other women from taking a stand against the KKNPP. The war of attrition led by the police will not stifle the battle of the women of Idinthakarai to defend their community and to reach out in solidarity to the other communities in India facing nuclear projects.

An open letter by the women and children of Idinthakarai states: “We realise more than ever that our struggle is not against nuclear energy alone. Our demand is to be allowed to pursue a life style based on truth, justice and hard work. Our adherence to this has made us raise crucial questions about democracy and governance, about the way decisions are being taken in our country and how the well being of the marginalised are neglected and trampled upon.”

The Australian and Indian governments are currently arranging a uranium export deal. In 2011, the Labor Party reversed its policy against uranium exports to countries that haven’t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically to allow exports to India. The Coalition government is now carrying the project forward, despite popular opposition at mine sites, along the transport routes, at the sites of nuclear power stations and in places flagged for radioactive waste dumps in Australia and worldwide. Selling uranium to India makes Australia an accomplice in risky nuclear projects and cruel repression of the communities surrounding nuclear power plants. It also facilitates the expansion of India’s nuclear weapons arsenal − if not directly, then certainly indirectly: imported uranium frees up India’s domestic sources for use in weapons production.

In three days of conversations, impressions, shared walks and meals, we began to sense what life is like living a peoples’ movement against a nuclear power station. We recorded interviews and tried to act as conduits between anti-nuclear movements in Australia and this gorgeous town where we hope Australian uranium never lands.

It doesn’t really matter where the uranium comes from; the people of Idinthakarai are adamant that no uranium should fuel the KKNPP and that 2014 is the year to shut it down, completely.

Gem Romuld is co-ordinator of the Anti-nuclear & Clean Energy (ACE) collective at Friends of the Earth, Melbourne.

Dave Sweeney

Chain Reaction #120, March 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

As the deeply disturbing events unfolding in the Ukraine highlight, troop mobilisations, sabre-rattling and suppression of civilian critics are becoming the hallmarks of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Australia, along with most Western nations, has condemned the Russian escalation and called for restraint and dialogue. Such a call is important but needs to be accompanied by action to ensure it penetrates the thick walls of the Kremlin.

One clear and potent action that Australia could take to amplify our diplomatic dissent would be to halt our fledgling yellowcake trade with Russia. Uranium is a dual use fuel: it provides the power fuel for nuclear reactors and the bomb fuel for nuclear weapons − and the distinction between the two sectors is more one of political convenience than practical effect.

Russia’s arsenal of over 14,000 nuclear weapons has an explosive yield equivalent to 200,000 Hiroshima bombs and President Putin has stated that any reduction in these numbers would only serve make its nuclear arsenal “more compact but more effective”. Putin has declared that a nuclear arsenal “remains one of the top priorities of Russian Federation policy” and that Russia will develop “completely new strategic [nuclear] complexes.”

In both 2007 and 2008 Russia threatened Poland with nuclear strikes from missiles it would base at its enclave of Kaliningrad following Polish approval for US missile defence bases in Poland.

Australia’s connection with the Russian nuclear industry escalated in 2007 when Prime Minister John Howard and President Putin inked a uranium supply agreement at the APEC summit in Sydney.

The deal was widely criticised by environment, proliferation and human rights groups, delayed by the political fallout from Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and subject to detailed assessment from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT), the Federal Parliament’s watchdog of Australian treaty deals and international agreements.

JSCOT heard evidence highlighting concerns and deficiencies within the Russian nuclear industry, including an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimate that only half of Russia’s nuclear materials have been reasonably secured. Informed by these real world concerns and evidence, JSCOT recommended a mix of caution and action in relation to planned Australian uranium sales.

The majority JSCOT report argued that the government should not advance any sales until a series of essential pre-conditions were met. These included a detailed analysis of Russia’s nuclear non-proliferation status, the complete separation of Russia’s civil and military nuclear sectors, reductions in industry secrecy, independent safety and security assessments of Russian nuclear facilities and action on nuclear theft and smuggling concerns.

Importantly JSCOT urged that “actual physical inspection by the IAEA occurs” at any Russian sites that may handle Australian uranium and recommended that “the supply of uranium to Russia should be contingent upon such inspections being carried out.”

Despite these concerns successive Australian governments have furthered the fiction that the Russian nuclear sector is secure and safe. And put undue and unproven confidence in the myth that nuclear safeguards − meant to stop the cross-pollination of the military and civil nuclear sectors − actually work. International inspections and scrutiny are limited or absent and perceived commercial interests have been given precedence over proven safety and security concerns.

In late December 2010 the first shipment of Australian uranium, sourced from Energy Resources of Australia’s troubled Ranger mine in Kakadu − itself the site of a spectacular and severe contamination event last December − arrived in Russia.

The former Chair of JSCOT, Labor MP Kelvin Thompson, has made an urgent called for the uranium sales deal to be reviewed in the light of current tensions between Russia and Ukraine. And it would appear most Australians agree with this common sense proposition. A 2008 survey found 62% of Australians opposed uranium exports to nuclear weapons states compared to 31% in favour. An International Atomic Energy Agency survey of 1,000 Australians in 2005 found 56% believed the IAEA safeguards system was ineffective − nearly double the 29% who considered it effective.

Putting the promises of an under-performing resource sector ahead of evidence-based assessment has seen Australia squander a real chance to advance nuclear non-proliferation − however, we still have the ability and the responsibility to make a difference. Foreign Minister Bishop must stop wringing hands and act decisively to halt any chance of fuelling arms.

President Putin’s civil atomic aspirations exceed the capacity of Russia’s nuclear sector while his military ones have no place on a habitable planet. Neither should be fuelled by Australian uranium.

Dave Sweeney is nuclear free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation

Summary: There are many, repeatedly-demonstrated links between nuclear power and weapons. Recent research demonstrates that severe global climatic consequences would follow a limited regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs targeting cities.

Prof. Alan Robock from Rutgers University and Prof. Brian Toon from the University of Colorado summarise recent research on the climatic impacts of nuclear warfare: “A nuclear war between any two countries, each using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs, such as India and Pakistan, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is less than 0.05% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal. Nuclear arsenals with 50 nuclear weapons can produce a global pall of smoke leading to global ozone depletion. The smoke, once in the stratosphere, heats the air, which speeds up reactions that destroy ozone, and also lofts reactive chemicals by altering the winds.”

More information:

* Starr, Steven, October 2009, ‘Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict’, paper commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, www.icnnd.org/research/Starr_Nuclear_Winter_Oct_09.pdf

* Starr, Steven, 12 March 2010, ‘The climatic consequences of nuclear war’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-climatic-consequences-of-nuclear-war

* Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict – references and links to articles by Prof. Alan Robock, Prof. Brian Toon and others http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear

* Robock, Alan, 2009, Nuclear winter, www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter

* Robock Alan, and Brian Toon, December 30, 2009, ‘South Asian Threat? Local Nuclear War = Global Suffering’, Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=local-nuclear-war

---

---

Nuclear Famine

nuclearfamine.org and see the publications listed at nuclearfamine.org/about-steven-starr/

The long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war between the US and Russia could kill most humans and land animals. An India-Pakistan nuclear war could cause 2 billion people to starve to death. Nuclear war threatens all nations and peoples.

---

Nuclear power, warfare and global famine

Jim Green, Chain Reaction #115, August 2012, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction/

A nuclear war using as few as 100 weapons would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the lives of more than a billion people would be at risk, according to research findings released in April by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its Australian affiliate, the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

Working with data produced by scientists who have studied the climate effects of a hypothetical nuclear war between India and Pakistan, author Dr. Ira Helfand and a team of experts in agriculture and nutrition determined that plunging temperatures and reduced precipitation in critical farming regions, caused by soot and smoke lofted into the atmosphere by multiple nuclear explosions, would interfere with crop production and affect food availability and prices worldwide.

The report finds that:

• There would be a significant decline in middle season rice production in China. During the first four years, rice production would decline by an average of 21% and over the next six years the decline would average 10%.
• Increases in food prices would make food inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest. Even if agricultural markets continued to function normally, 215 million people would be added to the rolls of the malnourished over the course of a decade. Significant agricultural shortfalls would lead to panic and hoarding on an international scale, further reducing accessible food.
• The 925 million people in the world who are already chronically malnourished would be put at risk by a 10% decline in their food consumption.

Dr Helfand said: “The death of one billion people over a decade would be a disaster unprecedented in human history. It would not cause the extinction of the human race, but it would bring an end to modern civilization as we know it.”

Power and proliferation

The report on the catastrophic potential of nuclear warfare has important implications for the ongoing debate over nuclear power. Apologists for the nuclear industry trot out any number of furphies in their efforts to distance nuclear power from WMD proliferation, but the facts are in. There is a long history of ostensibly peaceful nuclear programs providing political cover and technical support for nuclear weapons programs − and an expansion of nuclear power can only exacerbate the problem.

Of the 10 nations to have produced nuclear weapons:

• Six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program – India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea, and France.
• The other four nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, China, UK) developed nuclear weapons before nuclear power − but there are still significant links between their peaceful and military nuclear programs (e.g. routine transfer of personnel).
• Eight of the 10 nations have nuclear power reactors and those eight countries account for nearly 60% of global nuclear power capacity.

Examples of the direct use of nuclear power reactors in weapons programs include the following:

• North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests have used plutonium produced in an ‘Experimental Power Reactor’.
• Power reactors are used in India’s nuclear weapons program − this has long been suspected and is no longer in doubt since India refuses to allow eight out of 22 reactors (and its entire thorium/plutonium program) to be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards inspections.
• The US has used power reactors in recent years to produce tritium for use in ‘boosted’ nuclear weapons.
• The 1962 test of sub-weapon-grade plutonium by the US may have used plutonium from a power reactor.
• France’s civilian nuclear program provided the base of expertise for its weapons program, and material for weapons was sometimes produced in power reactors.
• Magnox reactors in the UK had the dual roles of producing weapon grade plutonium and generating electricity.
• Pakistan may be using power reactor/s in support of its nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear power programs have facilitated and provided cover for weapons programs even without the direct use of power reactors to produce material for weapons. Nuclear power programs provide a rationale for the acquisition and use of:

• uranium enrichment technology (which can produce low enriched uranium for power reactors or highly enriched uranium for weapons);
• reprocessing technology (which separates spent nuclear fuel into three streams − uranium, high-level waste, and weapons-useable plutonium); and
• research and training reactors (which can produce plutonium and other materials for weapons, and can also be used for weapons-related research).

The nuclear weapons programs in South Africa and Pakistan were outgrowths of their power programs although enrichment plants, not power reactors, produced most or all of the fissile (explosive) material used in weapons.

Research and training reactors, ostensibly acquired in support of a power program or for other civil purposes, have been a plutonium source for weapons in India and Israel and have been used for weapons-related research and experiments in numerous other countries including Iraq, Iran, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, Yugoslavia, and possibly Romania.

Nuclear power programs can facilitate weapons programs even if power reactors are not actually built. Iraq provides a clear illustration of this important point. While Iraq’s nuclear research program provided much cover for the weapons program from the 1970s to 1991, stated interest in developing nuclear power was also significant. Iraq pursued a ‘shop til you drop’ program of acquiring dual-use technology, with much of the shopping done openly and justified by nuclear power ambitions.

According to Khidhir Hamza, a senior nuclear scientist involved in Iraq’s weapons program: “Acquiring nuclear technology within the IAEA safeguards system was the first step in establishing the infrastructure necessary to develop nuclear weapons. In 1973, we decided to acquire a 40-megawatt research reactor, a fuel manufacturing plant, and nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities, all under cover of acquiring the expertise needed to eventually build and operate nuclear power plants and produce and recycle nuclear fuel. Our hidden agenda was to clandestinely develop the expertise and infrastructure needed to produce weapon-grade plutonium.”

Power and proliferation − two sides of the same coin and a major factor to consider when weighing different energy options, all the more so in light of the report on nuclear warfare and global famine.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia.

The report, ‘Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk − Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition’, is posted at mapw.org.au/download/nuclear-famine-findings Videos are posted on youtube − search ‘nuclear famine’.

More information on the links between nuclear power and WMD proliferation is posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/power-weapons/

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS NUCLEAR POWER IN AUSTRALIA

Jim Green

Friends of the Earth Australia

nuclear.foe.org.au

23 May 2025

—-

1. Introduction
2. National attitudes
3. Younger voters
4. The gender divide
5. Nuclear waste and accidents
6. Opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant
7. Attitudes in rural and regional areas including those targeted for nuclear power plants

1. Introduction

On the day after the Coalition’s disastrous performance at the May 5 federal election, Nationals leader David Littleproud said nuclear power was not responsible for the Coalition’s historic loss. Ted O’Brien, a chief architect of the nuclear policy and now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, refused to concede that the nuclear power policy cost the Coalition votes, saying it would be “premature” to judge.

In fact, a vast amount of evidence ‒ presented below ‒ clearly indicates that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition votes. It may have cost the Coalition 10 or more seats (see section 2 below). If not for the swing away from the Coalition for other reasons, the nuclear policy could have cost the Coalition many more seats. In the seat of Dickson, for example, nuclear power was clearly unpopular but Peter Dutton would likely have lost his seat regardless of the nuclear policy.

There was abundant evidence of voter rejection of nuclear power ahead of the election. For example the Murdoch / News Corp. press released polling results on April 19, 2025 showing that Labor’s campaign against the Coalition’s nuclear power policy is “driving a collapse in the Coalition’s primary vote in marginal seats across Australia.”

Claims that nuclear power did not cost the Coalition votes and seats, or that it is premature to judge, do not withstand scrutiny. Voter rejection of the Coalition’s nuclear policy was evident to the South Australian Liberal Party, which abandoned its pro-nuclear power policy and abolished the position of ‘Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness’ two days after the federal election. State leader Vincent Tarzia acknowledged that nuclear power has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.

2. National attitudes

Nuclear power enjoys little support in rural and regional Australia, including the regions targeted for nuclear reactors. Likewise, national polls reveal scepticism and opposition.

A RedBridge poll of around 2,000 Australian voters in May 2024 found that:

* The only demographics enthusiastic about nuclear power were Coalition voters (net opposition among voters for all other parties), those aged over 65 (net opposition in all other age brackets), those who earn more than $3,000 a week (net opposition among all other wage brackets), and those who own their own home (net opposition among mortgage holders and renters).

* Among Coalition voters, support for nuclear power exceeded opposition 52:23, a net positive rating of 29. Among Labor voters, there was 23% support compared to 44% opposition (a net rating of -21%). Among greens voters, there was 17% compared to 48% opposition (a net rating of -31%).

* 34% support for lifting the ban on nuclear power so private investors could build nuclear power plants in Australia compared to 35% opposition. Just 18% of female respondents supported lifting the ban compared to 47% opposition. Among male respondents, 50% supported lifting the ban compared to 24% opposition.

* Among those who described themselves as under “a great deal of financial stress”, opposition to nuclear power exceeded support by 15 points; but among those under “no stress at all”, support exceeded opposition by 19 points.

Commenting on the poll, Redbridge director Tony Barry, a former deputy director of the Victorian Liberal Party, said that the one-third broad support for nuclear power is “very soft”. He added: “People know that nuclear power is used in other parts of the world, maybe they’ve been to Europe and seen power stations … but when you start talking about doing it in their state … [support] just evaporates.”

Others researchers have commented on the ‘softness’ of support for nuclear power. Dr Rebecca Huntley, director of research at 89 Degrees East, told the Nine newspapers in March 2024 that participants in focus groups were bringing up nuclear more often than before the last federal election, but support usually dissolved once the discussion turned to timelines, logistics and the issue of how to store nuclear waste. Likewise, Redbridge pollster and director Kos Samaras told the Nine newspapers in March 2024 that the question of social licence would be impossible to overcome because soft support for nuclear power would evaporate and bump up against hard opposition.

The Murdoch / News Corp. press released polling results on April 19, 2025 showing that Labor’s campaign against the Coalition’s nuclear power policy is “driving a collapse in the Coalition’s primary vote in marginal seats across Australia.” The RedBridge-Accent poll in 20 marginal seats found that 56% of poll respondents agreed with Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost $600 billion and require spending cuts to pay for it, while only 13% disagreed. RedBridge’s Tony Barry said Labor’s message linking the costs of the Coalition’s nuclear power plan to cuts to Medicare was “smashing the Liberal brand and Dutton’s personal numbers and that’s atomising the primary vote.”

News Corp. national political editor James Campbell offered this explanation for the Coalition’s loss of public support:

“The question obviously is why? And here it’s hard to go past the decision to try to win an election from opposition by promising nuclear power. The brilliance of Labor’s decision to attack Dutton’s nuclear plan on the grounds of cost instead of safety is only now becoming clear. Focusing on cost has allowed the government to use nuclear to highlight its other charge against the Coalition – that given a chance, the conservatives will cut whatever they can get away with.”

The Adelaide Advertiser and other News Corp. publications reported on May 1, four days before the election, that 41% of 1011 respondents to a Redbridge-Accent national poll ranked concerns that Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan will cost $600 billion and will require cuts to pay for it among their top five reasons for deciding to oppose a particular party. Only one issue topped nuclear power as a vote-changing turn-off. The Advertiser article was titled ‘Where the Libs went off track: Inside the Coalition’s disastrous campaign’ and it ran alongside another titled ‘Coalition nuked by nervous electors.’

Voter rejection of the nuclear policy was evident long before the May 2025 election. In March 2024, James Campbell warned that the Coalition’s nuclear power policy is “stark raving mad.” In the same month, Tony Barry described the nuclear policy as “the longest suicide note in Australian political history.”

 

Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research in an April 28 media release:

“A new uComms poll shows leading Liberal frontbencher Michael Sukkar could lose his seat at the coming election if the Party persists with its unpopular nuclear plan. The poll, commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, shows Labor and the Coalition tied at 50-50 in two-party preferred terms in Deakin. However, the same polling reveals that if the Liberals dumped their nuclear policy, they would surge to a commanding 53-47 lead.

“The polling follows a broader survey across 12 marginal seats that showed the Liberal Party would gain 2.8 percentage points in primary vote if it abandoned the nuclear energy policy.

“An earlier poll in the seat of Brisbane found the nuclear policy was a significant drag on Liberal candidate Trevor Evans’ support.

“The Deakin polling showed women voters are particularly opposed to the nuclear policy, with 53.2% of women saying it makes them less likely to vote Liberal compared to 41.3% of men. Overall, 47.5% of Deakin voters are less likely to support the Coalition because of the nuclear policy.

“The data also revealed that 56.1% of respondents don’t support nuclear power at all, with concerns about renewable energy investment reductions (19.0%), nuclear waste management (15.9%), and high build costs (13.0%) being the primary objections.

“In the crucial 35-50 age demographic that makes up many families in Deakin, 48.4% are less likely to vote Liberal due to the nuclear policy.”

The Liberals Against Nuclear group’s pre-election statements can now be assessed in the light of election results. In the seat of Deakin, the group said that their polling had the Liberal and Labor candidates tied 50:50 and that the Liberal candidate would hold a 53:47 lead if not for the Coalition’s nuclear power policy. With 94.8% of votes counted, Liberal candidate Michael Sukkar has lost his seat with a 2.8% swing to Labor and a two-party preferred margin of 52.8% to 47.2% in Labor’s favour.

Thus the nuclear policy may have decided the result in Deakin and cost Michael Sukkar his seat. Indeed the nuclear policy may have cost the Coalition around 11 seats. Assuming a national swing comparable to that predicted by Liberals Against Nuclear (a 2.8% drop in primary vote), the Coalition may have lost the following seats because of the nuclear power policy:

* Aston (Vic) ‒ ALP retain ‒ the Coalition’s two-party preferred vote was 46.6% as of 21 May 2025

* Banks (NSW) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 47.6% Coalition two-party preferred

* Bendigo ‒ ALP retain ‒ 48.5%

* Bullwinkel (WA) ‒ ALP retain ‒ 49.5%

* Deakin (Vic) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 47.2%

* Forde (Qld) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 48.2%

* Hughes (NSW) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 47.1%

* Menzies (Vic) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 48.9%

* Moore (WA) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 47.0%

* Petrie (Qld) ‒ ALP gain ‒ 48.9%

* Solomon (NT) ‒ ALP retain ‒ 48.7%

An April 2025 UComms poll of 854 people in Dickson found that:

* Opposition leader Peter Dutton could be vulnerable in the seat of Dickson because of the nuclear power policy. 46.7% of those surveyed said they were less likely to vote for Mr. Dutton because of the policy while 37.4% were more likely to vote for him because of the policy. Among respondents who favoured the independent, Labor and Greens candidates, no more than 6.9% were more likely to vote for Mr. Dutton because of the nuclear policy and no less than 73.9% were less likely to vote for him because of the nuclear policy.

* 60.9% of respondents thought that “investing to help more people access rooftop solar and batteries” was most likely to bring down energy bills compared to 39.1% who thought nuclear power was most likely to bring down energy bills. Respondents who favoured the independent, Labor and Greens candidates were more than 90% in favour of the solar/battery option with less than 10% supporting nuclear power to reduce energy bills. Those favouring Mr. Dutton preferred nuclear power by a margin of 78:22.

* Asked which major party “has the best policies to bring down energy bills”, 54% chose Labor compared to 46% choosing the Coalition. Among those who favoured the independent, Labor and Greens candidates, at least 85.7% thought Labor has better policies to bring down energy bills and no more than 14.3% thought the Coalition has better policies to bring down energy bills.

Pre-election polls and predictions can now be evaluated in light of the election result. With 92.3% of the vote counted in Dickson as of 21 May 2025, Mr. Dutton has lost his seat with a swing of 7.8% and a two-party preferred deficit of 43.9% to 56.1%. The April 2025 UComms poll estimated a two-party preferred vote of 52:48 in favour of Labor.

It seems likely that Mr. Dutton would have lost his seat with or without the nuclear power policy. If not for the swing away from Mr. Dutton for unrelated reasons, the nuclear policy may have been decisive ‒ and the same could be said for many seats that the Coalition lost or failed to win.

A February 2024 national poll of 1,012 Australians by Glow Market Research found that:

* 72% of Australians believe we should continue the shift to renewable energy rather than build nuclear power plants (17% support) or new coal (11% support).

* 75% of Australians think the number one way to bring down power bills quickly is to build more renewable energy and batteries or subsidise rooftop solar.

The 2024 National Climate Action Survey of more than 4,000 respondents ‒ conducted by Griffith University’s Climate Action Beacon in partnership with the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub ‒ found that:

* 59% of respondents wanted to keep the legal ban on nuclear power in 2024 (up from 51% in 2023), while the number opposing the ban fell from 34% in 2023 to 30% in 2024. Only 18% of women were in favour of lifting the ban with 66% wanting the ban to remain. 36% of men were in favour of lifting the ban with 51% wanting the ban to remain.

* Those who said the benefits of nuclear power far outweighed the risks fell from 24.5% support in 2023 to 22% in 2024. Those who said the risks of nuclear power far outweighed the benefits rose from 21.9% in 2023 to 26% in 2024.

ABC Vote Compass poll results reported on April 12, 2025 found that 47% of respondents strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with building nuclear power plants, while 38% were somewhat or strongly supportive. The poll found 44% support for nuclear power reactors among those who intend to vote for the Coalition but far less support from those planning to vote for independents (7.5% in strong agreement), Labor (5% in strong agreement) and the Greens (4% in strong agreement).

A Resolve poll for Nine newspapers in April 2025 found that 31% of respondents cited nuclear power as one of their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, up 5% from the previous corresponding poll.

In October 2024, nuclear power regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source. The Australian Financial Review reported:

“As the election draws closer, the latest The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll shows nuclear energy is failing to gain traction with voters. After seven months, it has fallen behind coal to seize back the mantle as the nation’s least favoured method of generating electricity.

“While 34 per cent support nuclear power, 36 per cent oppose it, giving it a net approval rating of minus 2, putting it in last place behind coal which has a net approval of plus 5.

“The most popular power source is rooftop solar (plus 80), followed by solar farms (plus 60), natural gas (plus 46), offshore wind and onshore wind (both plus 37) and hydrogen (plus 32).”

Two months later, in December 2024, an AFR / Freshwater poll found that nuclear power had retained its status as Australia’s most unpopular energy source.

A Freshwater Strategy Poll in September 2023 found that:

* 37% agree that ‘Australia does not need to generate any energy from nuclear power’, 36% disagree, 27% neutral.

* Solar energy is the most popular energy source (84% support, 6% opposed), onshore and offshore wind are next (61% and 58% support, 12% opposed), while nuclear (35% support, 35% opposed) and coal (33% support, 35% opposed) were the least popular energy sources.

* Among Coalition voters, there was more support for renewables (35%) than nuclear (32%) as the ‘best option for energy generation in Australia’. For Labor voters, 62% think renewables are the best option, 17% nuclear. For Greens voters, 78% renewables, 6% nuclear.

A 2023 Savanta study commissioned by the pro-nuclear Radiant Energy Group found that:

* 40% strongly support or tend to support using nuclear energy to generate electricity in Australia, 36% strongly oppose or tend to oppose, 17% neutral, 7% don’t know.

* 56% of Australian respondents think the energy transition should focus on renewables (41% large-scale solar farms, 15% onshore wind farms), 23% think it should focus on nuclear power.

A 2023 Australia Institute survey found that 27% included nuclear power in their top three energy preferences, behind solar 68%, wind 51%, hydro 39% and power storage 28%.

A poll by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in April 2025 found that 30% of Australians support building nuclear power reactors, a fall from 39% a year earlier.

A July 2024 Guardian Essential poll of 1,141 Australians found that:

* Nuclear power was rated “most expensive” by 38% of respondents, up two points from April, while 35% said the same of renewables, down five points.

* 52% of respondents described the Coalition’s nuclear plan as “an attempt to extend the life of gas and limit investment in large-scale renewables”.

* Given a choice of three energy sources, 59% ranked renewables as the “most desirable” compared to 23% for nuclear power and 19% for fossil fuels. Nuclear was judged “least desirable” by 45% of respondents.

* 61% said they were “concerned” or “very concerned” about the safety of nuclear power plants in Australia, while 39% said they were not concerned.

SEC Newgate’s ‘Mood of the Nation’ report released in July 2024 found that among 2021 Australians over the age of 18:

* 37% supported nuclear power, 39% were opposed.

* A clear preference for building large-scale wind and solar farms with new transmission lines (50% of respondents preferred this option) rather than nuclear power plants that use existing transmission infrastructure (26% preferred this option).

* Of those who oppose the Coalition’s nuclear plan, most objections related to safety concerns (41% said nuclear power is too dangerous).

Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia found that support for nuclear power dropped from 55% in February 2025 to 42% in April ‒ the lowest level in years according to WePlanet. The polling was conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Qualtrics. The survey was conducted online from 24th to 27th April and involved 2,241 participants. In less than three months from Feb. 2025 to late April, net support for nuclear power fell from +21% to -2% with a sharp drop in support of -13% and a sharp increase in opposition of 10%. Support fell from 55% to 42% and opposition increased from 34% to 44%. The poll found that nuclear power is opposed by Greens voters (29% support; 60% opposed) and Labor voters (27:63) but supported by Coalition voters (65:24).

3. Younger voters

Researcher Murray Goot discussed polls considering the attitudes of younger Australians towards nuclear power. Responding to a poorly-constructed (i.e. biased) Newspoll purporting to demonstrate strong support for nuclear power among younger Australians, Goot said:

“But eighteen- to thirty-four-year-olds as the age group most favourably disposed to nuclear power is not what Essential shows, not what Savanta shows, and not what RedBridge shows. “In October’s Essential poll, no more than 46 per cent of respondents aged eighteen to thirty-four supported “nuclear power plants” ‒ the same proportion as those aged thirty-six to fifty-four but a smaller proportion than those aged fifty-five-plus (56 per cent); the proportion of “strong” supporters was actually lower among those aged eighteen to thirty-four than in either of the other age-groups.

“In the Savanta survey, those aged eighteen to thirty-four were the least likely to favour nuclear energy; only about 36 per cent were in favour, strongly or otherwise, not much more than half the number that Newspoll reported.

“And according to a report of the polling conducted in February by RedBridge, sourced to Tony Barry, a partner and former deputy state director of the Victorian Liberal Party, “[w]here there is support” for nuclear power “it is among only those who already vote Liberal or who are older than 65”.”

Polling released by WePlanet on May 1, 2025 found that “developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity” is not supported by those aged 18-34 (38% support; 48% opposed), or those aged 35-54 (41:45) but enjoys more support from those aged 55+ (47:41).

4. The gender divide

There is a striking gender divide with men far more supportive of nuclear power than women:

* A 2023 Savanta study found that men are more supportive of nuclear power than women in all 20 countries surveyed.

* DemosAU polling of more than 6,000 Australians in late-2024 found that just 26% of women think nuclear power would be good for Australia, compared to 51% of men. DemosAU Head of Research George Hasanakos described the results as “the sharpest divide in attitudes between men and women that we have seen on any issue.”

* A RedBridge poll of around 2,000 Australian voters in May 2024 found that just 18% of female respondents supported lifting the legal ban prohibiting nuclear power in Australia compared to 47% opposition. Among male respondents 50% supported lifting the ban compared to 24% opposition.

* WePlanet polling released on May 1, 2025 found that most males support “Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity” (51% strongly or somewhat support; 41% strongly or somewhat opposed) but among females, support is more than doubled by opposition (23:47).

5. Nuclear waste and accidents are key concerns

A September 2023 Freshwater Strategy Poll found that a majority (55%) agreed with the proposition ‘I am concerned that nuclear plants are unsafe and people will be harmed’ (30% strongly, 25% slightly), while 27% disagreed (4% strongly, 13% slightly).and 17% were neutral.

A 2023 Savanta poll found that 77% of respondents were either ‘very concerned’ (45%) or ‘fairly concerned’ (32%) about nuclear waste management compared to 18% ‘not very concerned’ (13%) or ‘not at all concerned’ (5%). The poll found that 77% were ‘very concerned’ (47%) or ‘fairly concerned’ (30%) about “health & safety (i.e. nuclear meltdowns, impact on people living nearby)” compared to 21% ‘not very concerned (14%) or ‘not at all concerned’ (7%).

Kos Samaras from RedBridge offered this qualitative analysis: “If people are losing their minds about whales bumping into offshore wind turbines, they’re going to be a little bit more animated when it comes to conventional nuclear reactors being built in nearby locations”.

6. Opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant

Many polls over the past 20 years demonstrate opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant.

The 2024 National Climate Action Survey of more than 4,000 respondents ‒ conducted by Griffith University’s Climate Action Beacon in partnership with the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub ‒ found that 73.5% of participants were moderately to extremely concerned about the possibility of a nuclear plant being built within 50 kilometres of their homes: 8.8% ‘moderately concerned’, 9.9% ‘concerned’, 16% ‘very concerned’, and 38.8% ‘extremely concerned’. In addition, 15.4% were ‘a little concerned’ or ‘slightly concerned’ while only 11.2% were ‘not at all concerned’. In contrast, about 80% of respondents viewed wind and solar power favourably with the majority expressing little to no concern if such renewable energy projects were established nearby.

National Climate Action Survey data. Source: The Guardian, 24/4/25

A Demos AU poll of 6,709 adults between July and November 2024 found that 63% of women said they don’t want to live near a nuclear plant and 57% said transporting radioactive waste isn’t worth the risk. Only one in three of the men surveyed were willing to live near a nuclear power plant.

A September 2023 AFR / Freshwater Strategy Poll of 1,003 eligible voters in Australia found that around one-quarter of voters would tolerate a nuclear plant being built within 50 km of their home, while a majority (53%) would oppose it.

A February 2024 national poll of 1,012 Australians by Glow Market Research found that 76% of Australians would prefer to live near renewable energy projects, like wind and solar farms, rather than nuclear power plants (12%) or coal plants (11%).

YouGov polling commissioned polling by ACM in April 2025 in the NSW electorate of Paterson (north of Newcastle, east of the proposed nuclear site at Liddell). When asked if they would support a nuclear power station in the region, 47% opposed or strongly opposed the idea compared to 28% who supported or strongly supported it.

A poll conducted by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in mid-2024 found that 30% of regional Australians felt comfortable having a nuclear power station within 50 km of where they lived, while 53% disliked the idea.

In late-2024, RE-Alliance commissioned 89 Degrees East to poll 1,770 Australians living in renewable energy zones. The poll measured attitudes towards living near energy infrastructure. In response to the question ‘how do you feel about living near the following types of infrastructure?’, the poll found:

* Nuclear: 53% said they would reject it, 14% said they would embrace or approve of it

* Coal or gas: 36% reject, 15% embrace or approve

* Solar farms: 14% reject, 39% embrace or approve

* Onshore wind farm: 25% reject, 24% embrace or approve

* Transmission lines: 23% reject, 11% embrace or approve

RE-Alliance national director Andrew Bray said: “People living in renewable energy zones rank nuclear last in terms of energy infrastructure they’re comfortable living near. Farmers are on track to make $1 billion in passive income from clean energy rent between now and 2030, while nuclear is on track to deliver farmers $0 over the same period. Regional Australians are finally sharing in the dividends that come from generating energy through the diversification of wind and solar projects across the country.

Opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant has been clearly and consistently demonstrated by opinion polls stretching back to the Howard years:

* 2022 Pure Profile poll: “Around 50%” of respondents in Australia, the US and Canada would feel “uncomfortable” if a new nuclear power station were built in their city. For the Australian respondents, 27% would feel “extremely uncomfortable” and only 7% would feel “extremely at ease”.

* 2019 Essential poll: 28% “would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant”, 60% would not.

* 2019 Roy Morgan poll of 1,006 Australians aged 18-64: 19% would agree to a nuclear power plant being built in their area, 58% would be opposed and a further 23% would be “anxious” (so 81% would be opposed or anxious).

* 2011 Roy Morgan poll: 12% of Australians would support a nuclear plant being built in their local area, 73% would oppose it (up 23% since 1979), and 13% would be anxious but not oppose it (so 86% would be opposed or anxious).

* 2007 Newspoll: An editorial in the Australian stated that one-quarter of Australians would support a nuclear power station being built near them.

* 2006 Newspoll: 10% Australians would be strongly in favour of a nuclear power plant being built in their local area, 55% would strongly oppose it; 66% somewhat or strongly opposed, 25% somewhat or strongly in favour.

7. Attitudes in rural and regional areas including those targeted for nuclear power plants

Referring to the seven sites targeted by the Coalition for nuclear reactors, Nationals leader David Littleproud said in January 2025: “What we’re seeing in the polling, what everyone’s seeing the polling in these communities, is overwhelming support for a transition of these coal-fired power stations to nuclear power plants.”

Contrary to Mr. Littleproud’s claim, polling does not demonstrate support for nuclear power in these communities or across rural and regional Australia more generally.

A poll conducted by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in mid-2024 found 39% support for nuclear power among regional Australians. Asked to rank 12 energy options, regional Australians ranked nuclear power at number eight. Rooftop solar had the most support at 88% and nuclear power was considerably less popular than onshore and offshore wind, green hydrogen and pumped hydro. Building large-scale wind farms and solar farms and new transmission lines in regional areas was more popular across all states than constructing nuclear power plants on coal sites connected to existing transmission lines.

An April 2025 YouGov poll found that regional and rural Australians support renewables over nuclear by a considerable margin. The poll of 1,622 respondents found that among city residents, 54% preferred an energy transition including more wind, solar and batteries compared to 24% who preferred a transition including nuclear. For regional and rural residents, 50% preferred more wind, solar and batteries compared to 30% who preferred nuclear power.

Polling in March 2025 by research firm 89 Degrees East for the Renew Australia for All campaign found just 27% support for “developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure” in Gladstone, 24% in the rest of Central Queensland, 24% in Bunbury, 22% in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow, 32% in Hunter, and 31% in Gippsland. The poll also found that just 13% of respondents thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest compared to 72% for renewables.

Responding to the 89 Degrees East polling, RE-Alliance National Director Andrew Bray said:

“RE-Alliance stands by the principle that all energy developments in regional Australia need broad community support – whether it’s for solar, wind, batteries, coal, coal seam gas or nuclear reactors.

“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.

“Community engagement is by no means easy, but you’ve got to at least try. It’s no surprise support is so low.”

“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66 per cent and 71 per cent.

“Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22 percent and 32 percent. Regional communities have enough uncertainty already. Let’s stop with the whiplash and stay the course on a shift to renewable energy which is already almost halfway done.”

A late-2024 89 Degrees East poll found that attitudes towards nuclear power are unfavourable in regions where nuclear plants are proposed by the Coalition:

* 59% of respondents in Central Queensland, which takes in the Coalition’s proposed Callide nuclear site, said they would reject living near a nuclear power station

* 54% of respondents in the Hunter, which takes in the Coalition’s proposed Liddell nuclear site, said they would reject living near a nuclear power station

* 49% of respondents in Gippsland, which takes in the Coalition’s proposed Loy Yang nuclear site, said they would reject living near a nuclear power station.

Andrew Bray commented: “There are too many polls to count that show the shift to clean energy is widely supported in country Australia. There are definitely challenges and a lack of trusted information, but communities are getting stuck in and working together to find a way forward. By contrast, there is little appetite for living near nuclear at all.”

Polling by Redbridge Group in April-May 2024 in the federal electorate of Gippsland (which includes the proposed nuclear site at Loy Yang) found that participants were overwhelmingly against the idea of having a nuclear power plant constructed in their neighbourhood or their region. Redbridge Group Director Kos Samaras said: “Overwhelmingly, most people were of the view that there’s too much risk associated with it, it’s expensive, and those with children indicated strongly that if one was to be built in the area, they will leave the area.”

On April 7, 2024, News Corp. national political editor James Campbell reported that recent focus group research carried out in the Hunter Valley in NSW and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria ‒ both targeted for nuclear power plants ‒ found that while voters were aware of the general arguments for nuclear power, they were hostile to plans for reactors in their own areas. Campbell reported:

“A Coalition source familiar with the research said the findings had come as a shock. “They had convinced themselves that people would be queuing up for these things,” the source said. Another said it was clear “more work needs to be done” on winning the argument.”

Renew Australia for All commissioned research firm 89 Degrees East to conduct polling in August 2024 on the shift to a renewable-powered economy nationally and in renewable energy zones, including 373 residents in the Hunter region of NSW. The key results for the Hunter region were as follows:

* 71% of Hunter residents think Australia will benefit from shifting to renewable energy, 67% think investing in renewable energy will be good for regional Australia, and 67% support the Australian government investing more in renewable energy.

* 73% of Hunter residents see renewables and batteries as the fastest way to bring down our energy bills, compared to 14% for nuclear reactors and 9% for new coal power stations.

* Only 9% of Hunter residents oppose Australia shifting to renewable energy, compared to 68% who support the shift.

A Lowy Institute poll found almost two-thirds of regional respondents supported the government’s 82% renewable target for 2030.

Polling by Farmers For Climate Action in late-2024 that found that 70% of rural Australians support clean energy projects on farmland in their local areas and 17% were opposed.

Chain Reaction #119, Nov 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

Documents obtained by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in August through freedom of information reveal that the Gillard government refused to endorse an 80-nation statement delivered at this year’s Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting in Geneva because it referred to a Red Cross resolution with which Australia fundamentally disagrees, and because it had concerns that the statement was designed to build support for a ban on nuclear weapons.

The declassified diplomatic cables, ministerial briefings and foreign ministry emails show that Australia’s opposition to the landmark Red Cross resolution – adopted by the international movement in November 2011 – prompted Australian Red Cross chief executive officer Robert Tickner to seek an explanation from then foreign minister Bob Carr, who responded to his letter but deliberately withheld information about Australia’s true position. Foreign ministry official Caroline Millar was fearful that to do so would “add oxygen” to the issue.

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and former foreign minister Gareth Evans were critical of Australia’s decision not to endorse the humanitarian statement. Responding to a letter from Mr Fraser, then prime minister Julia Gillard explained that Australia did not support it because “a push for a near-term ban on nuclear weapons formed part of the context of the statement’s intention”. Canberra is opposed to any moves to delegitimise the use or possession of nuclear weapons.

Canberra considers a ban on nuclear weapons to be incompatible with its continued reliance on US “extended nuclear deterrence”, which it claims “has provided security and stability in our region for more than 60 years and [has] underpinned regional prosperity”. Australia now hopes to steer other nations away from pursuing a ban on nuclear weapons, the documents reveal.

Tim Wright, Australian director of ICAN, said: “We were disappointed to learn that Australia plans to undermine the work of progressive nations and non-government organisations to advance a global ban on nuclear weapons. It should instead be driving international efforts for such a treaty. Despite their enormous destructive potential, nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet subject to a total ban.

“Australia cannot credibly advocate nuclear disarmament while claiming that US nuclear weapons guarantee our security and prosperity. Not only is this a ludicrous notion; it is also a dangerous one because it signals to other nations that nuclear weapons are useful and necessary,” Wright added. “It is now clear that the Rudd and Gillard governments were interested only in maintaining the status quo of disarmament inaction. The Abbott government should join the vast majority of nations, and the Red Cross, in rejecting nuclear weapons for all.”

In February 2014 the Mexican government will host a major conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, which is likely to be the first major test of the new Australian government’s commitment to nuclear disarmament. ICAN is encouraging the foreign ministry to report on the human toll of British nuclear testing in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, and to commission research on the effects of a regional nuclear war in Asia Pacific on the global climate and agricultural production.

“This would contribute to the evidence base key to informing policy choices about nuclear weapons and their elimination,” said Dr Bill Williams, who chairs ICAN in Australia. “The most startling new scientific evidence in relation to the effects of nuclear weapons is the severe, prolonged and global cooling, drying and darkening that would be caused by the millions of tons of soot and smoke injected into the upper atmosphere following the use of even a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

Gem Romuld, ICAN outreach coordinator in Australia, is encouraging more humanitarian and environmental organisations in Australia to adopt nuclear disarmament as part of their work, in the same way that Australian Red Cross has done. “Banning nuclear weapons is everyone’s responsibility,” she said. “The general public need to take nuclear weapons personally and insist that the Australian government take stock and get real on abolishing these weapons of mass destruction.”

Sources:

• International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, media release
• Philip Dorling, 2 October 2013, ‘ALP nuclear backflip linked to US defence’, Sydney Morning Herald, tinyurl.com/dorling-smh

Undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Dave Sweeney

Chain Reaction #119, Nov 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

August 2013 − Sixty-eight years ago this week our world changed forever – and tens of thousands of lives instantly ended – when the atomic bomb was unveiled. The destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (6 August) and Nagasaki (9 August) in 1945 heralded the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the nuclear age.

It is a long way from Hiroshima in 1945 to election mode Canberra in 2013, but lessons learned and actions taken to stop the chance of further nuclear threats are being forgotten in the rush to advance risky Australian uranium sales.

In December 2011, the Labor Party narrowly voted to overturn a long standing ban on the sale of uranium to countries that had not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — the world’s main check and balance on the spread of the world’s worst weapons.

Labor’s backflip was designed to allow uranium sales to India, a nuclear weapon state that has consistently refused to sign the NPT. The move was condemned by the Australian Greens but enthusiastically welcomed by the Coalition, which paved the way with its August 2007 decision to support uranium sales to India and is an active supporter of an expanded uranium sector.

But the controversial sales plan is in clear conflict with Australia’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty – also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga – and is putting Australia on a collision course with our Pacific neighbours.

Professor of International Law at ANU, Professor Donald Rothwell, has examined the treaty and the planned sale deal and concluded ‘Australia is obligated under the Treaty of Rarotonga to not provide India with nuclear materials until such time as India has concluded a full-scope safeguards agreement.’

The Treaty, signed 28 eight years ago this week in the Cook Islands, bans the use, testing and possession of nuclear weapons within the South Pacific region and places constraints on non-military nuclear activities, including the export of uranium. The Treaty sent a clear and important message to those nuclear weapons states that saw the Pacific as an easy testing ground. It remains relevant and important today, but is now under direct threat from the atomic ambitions of Australian politicians and miners.

The Treaty of Rarotonga clearly makes any uranium sales conditional on the receiver nation agreeing to comprehensive or ‘full-scope’ nuclear safeguards — that is, the nation receiving the uranium must open up all of its nuclear facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

India has declared some of its nuclear facilities to be ‘civilian’ and others ‘military’, with a number of its civilian facilities now open to the IAEA. But India retains extensive restrictions on international and independent access to its nuclear facilities and its approach in no way meets the requirements of comprehensive safeguards, posing a radioactive risk for the planet and a legal and policy headache for Australian uranium producers and promoters.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials currently developing a nuclear cooperation and sales treaty with their Indian counterparts are tight-lipped about the yawning gap between Australia’s uranium ambitions and nuclear obligations. For its part, India has made it clear that while it will continue developing and deploying nuclear weapons it will not accept full-scope safeguards on its nuclear facilities.

Proponents of the sales deal claim that earlier Indian recognition in a nuclear deal brokered with the United States mean changed circumstances and new rules, but the US-India deal has seen India accept only limited IAEA safeguards and in no way reduces Australia’s obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga.

As home to around 35 per cent of the world’s uranium, the decisions Australia makes and the positions Australia takes matter. Uranium is a dual use fuel – it can be used to power reactors or weapons – and the distinction between the civil and military nuclear sectors is often more psychological and semantic than real.

In the week that sees the anniversary of the both the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the signing of the Treaty of Rarotonga and in the shadow of Fukushima – a continuing nuclear crisis directly fuelled by Australian uranium – it is time for Australia – and Australian politicians – to choose. Do we advance the self-interest of the high risk, low return uranium mining sector or are we a nation with the capacity to reflect on the past, respect the future and honour our international commitments?

Dave Sweeney is nuclear free campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Reprinted from Independent Australia, 11 August 2013, www.independentaustralia.net

Undermining the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

Chain Reaction #119, Nov 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

Declassified documents from the National Archives of Australia, and US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, highlight longstanding opposition in Canberra and Washington to a comprehensive nuclear-free zone that might constrain US nuclear deployments in the Pacific.

This saga is detailed in a recent article by Nic Maclellan, who works as a journalist with Islands Business magazine (Fiji) and other Pacific media, and is co-author of three books on nuclear testing in the South Pacific.

The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty was finally negotiated in the 1980s after decades of campaigning by unions, Pacific churches and the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement.

Under the Treaty, member countries in the zone commit never to develop nuclear weapons. Under three protocols, nuclear weapons states with territories in the zone (France, Britain and the US) agree to apply the treaty to their territories. In accepting the protocols, all nuclear weapons powers also undertake not to use or threaten to use any nuclear device against countries in the zone, and not to test nuclear bombs in the zone.

Russia and China signed the protocols in 1986 and 1987 respectively, pledging not to store or test nuclear weapons in the region or use them against Australia, New Zealand or island nations. France, Britain and the US refused to sign the treaty protocols until March 1996 (after a series of French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific), and even now the US refuses to ratify its signature by passing legislation through the US Senate.

The delay reflects longstanding US opposition to limits on its nuclear deployments in the region. US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks show Washington’s opposition to the SPNFZ dating back to the 1970s.

US cables from September 1975 show that Gough Whitlam supported the proposal in public but privately told the US Embassy that he only did so because he “feels obliged to give token support” to a “beleaguered” NZ government. The Fraser government did nothing to progress Treaty negotiations from 1975−83.

The Hawke Labor government revived the concept of a nuclear free zone at the 1983 South Pacific Forum leaders meeting in Canberra. However the Hawke government was duplicitous as Nic Maclellan writes: “[D]eclassified documents from the National Archives of Australia, including the 1985 Cabinet minute about the SPNFZ Treaty, show clearly that Australia designed the treaty to protect US interests in the Pacific, including the deployment of nuclear-armed warships and the testing of nuclear missiles. … At the time, the Hawke government was embroiled in debate over a US proposal to test-fire two MX inter-continental ballistic missiles into Pacific waters east of Tasmania.”

Australia fought to retain the option to provide assistance in the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons − and fought against draft Treaty text which would complicate or preclude that option. Canberra wasn’t prepared to stop the export of uranium from Australia to nuclear weapons states.

Maclellan notes that those decisions during the 1980s have important implications today, at a time when Australia is proposing to sell uranium to India, a country that has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He writes:

“International legal experts, including Don Rothwell, professor of international law at the Australian National University, have raised concerns that uranium sales to India would breach Australia’s obligations under the treaty. Rothwell has prepared a legal opinion stating that the SPNFZ Treaty prohibits members from selling uranium to countries that do not accept full-scope nuclear safeguards under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“This is consistent with past Australian government policy. In 1996, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer observed that ‘Article 4(a) of the SPNFZ Treaty imposes a legal obligation not to provide nuclear material unless subject to the safeguards required by Article III.1 of the NPT; that is full scope safeguards.’

“In spite of this, the Gillard government commenced discussions on uranium sales to India in 2012, even though Delhi still refuses to open its nuclear facilities – civilian as well as military – to international inspectors, as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Nic Maclellan, 27 August 2013, ‘Delaying the nuclear-free zone in the Pacific’,

http://inside.org.au/delaying-the-nuclear-free-zone-in-the-pacific

or tinyurl.com/nic-macl

Chain Reaction #119, Nov 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

In the latest unrest at Niger’s uranium mines, one person was killed and 14 wounded in a car bomb attack at Areva’s uranium mine at Arlit, northern Niger, on May 23. Two suicide bombers were also killed. On the same day, military barracks in the northern town of Agadez were attacked, resulting in the deaths of 18 soldiers and one civilian.

The Arlit attack caused sufficient damage to force a halt to mining operations, which were partially restarted on June 18.

The Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO) claimed responsibility for the attacks, in retaliation for military involvement in neighbouring Mali. MUJAO was one of three Islamist groups that seized control of northern Mali last year before French-led troops drove them out.

Moktar Belmoktar, whose brigade calls itself ‘Those Who Sign In Blood’, also claimed responsibility for the Arlit attack and is believed to be responsible for an attack on a gas plant in Algeria in January which resulted in 80 deaths including 37 foreign hostages.

Areva and uranium mining in Niger

Areva has been mining uranium in Niger for more than 40 years and operates two mines in the north of the country through affiliated companies Somair (Arlit mine) and Cominak (the nearby Akokan mine). Areva is also working to start up a third uranium mine in Niger, at Imouraren.

In July 2007, rebels attacked the compound of an electricity company that powers the area’s towns and the Arlit and Akokan uranium mines, but government troops fought them off. Around the same time, rebels made a series of attacks on government and mining interests, killing 15 government soldiers and abducting over 70 more.

Four French workers were kidnapped in 2008 by Tuareg-led rebels and released several days later. The rebel Niger Justice Movement (MNJ) said the French were seized to demonstrate to foreign mining companies that the Niger government could not guarantee the security of their operations.

In August 2008, gunmen killed one civilian and wounded another in an attack on a lorry used for transporting uranium from north Niger to a port in Benin.

In 2010 in Arlit, seven employees of Areva and one of its contractors were kidnapped. Four of them, all French nationals, are still being held. The group has repeatedly threatened to execute them in retaliation for the French-led intervention in Mali.

After the 2010 kidnapping, the French government sent special military forces to protect Areva’s uranium mines in Niger, supplementing private security companies which mostly employ former military personnel. The use of French military forces to protect commercial interests led to renewed criticisms of French colonialism in Africa. (France ruled Nigeria as a colony for 60 years, ending in 1960.) In any case, French military forces and Nigerien counter-terrorism units failed to prevent the May 23 attack.

An Areva employee said questions were still being asked as to how the May 23 attack could have happened considering “the impressive military and security apparatus” that was in place. Agoumou Idi, a worker at the mine site, said: “We saw a car enter the factory and immediately it exploded. The terrorists, probably from MUJAO, took advantage of the fact that the entrance gate was open in order to let in a truck carrying the next shift of workers. They used that opening to enter the heart of our factory and explode their vehicle.”

In addition to attacks and kidnappings, the Arlit mine has been subject to worker disputes. Workers began an open-ended strike on August 20, 2012 over labour conditions, but the strike ended the following day as negotiations resumed with management over conditions at the mine.

There have also been strikes at the nearby Akokan uranium mine. About 1,200 workers began a 72-hour strike on July 9, 2012 to demand higher wages. A 48-hour strike began on April 18, 2013 to demand the payment of a bonus on the mine’s 2012 financial results. In May 2012, the social security tribunal of Melun (France) condemned Areva for the lung cancer death of a former employee of the Akokan mine. The court ordered Areva to pay 200,000 Euros plus interest in damages, and to double the widow’s pension. Serge Venel died of lung cancer in July 2009 at the age of 59, after working at the Akokan mine from 1978 to 1985.

Ethnic and regional tensions

Areva’s operations have exacerbated ethnic and regional tensions within Niger. Uranium production is concentrated in the northern homeland of the nomadic Tuareg minority, who have repeatedly risen in revolt, charging that whatever resources do accrue from the mining operations go primarily to the southern capital of Niamey.

According to the UN human development index, Niger is the third poorest country on the planet, with 70% of the population continuing to live on less than US$1 a day and life expectancy reaching only 45.

Khadija Sharife wrote in a 2010 Pambazuka article: “French interests on the continent were realised through France’s postcolonial Africa policy, known as Françafrique, extending to the diplomatic and political echelons of the Elysée from the days of de Gaulle. The policy comprised corporate and intelligence lobbies, multinationals intimately connected to the State such as Elf and Areva, French-backed dictators, and shadow networks named in honour of its masterminds such as Jacques Foccart, de Gaulle’s chief Africa advisor who was called out of retirement at age 81 by French President Jacques Chirac to resume activities. Chirac himself would declare in the early 1990s that the continent ‘was not yet ready for democracy.’ … Currently, the Niger’s 12,000 armed forces are guided by 15 French military advisors, with Nigerien personnel largely trained, armed and financed by France, protecting five critical defence zones – namely geostrategic routes and mines.”

In 2008, international transparency campaigners meeting under the umbrella of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative condemned the opaqueness surrounding Nigerien mining contracts and demanded their “full publication in the official gazette and the elimination of confidentiality clauses.” Nigerien environmental and civil society groups have also denounced the ‘vagueness’ of local authorities over numerous uranium and oil prospecting licences granted to foreign firms, including Areva. In May 2008 the Nigerien parliament rejected the creation of a commission of inquiry into mining contracts.

Environmental and health impacts

Areva was one of three companies receiving the Prix Pinocchio awards in 2012, in the category “Dirty Hands, Pockets Full” (prix-pinocchio.org). Friends of the Earth France said Areva “refuses to recognise its responsibility for the deterioration of the living conditions of people living near its uranium mines in Africa”, a charge that was denied by Areva.

In 2008, Areva received a Public Eye Award as one of “the world’s most irresponsible companies” for its uranium mining operations in Niger (publiceye.ch). NGOs the Berne Declaration and Pro Natura alleged: “Uranium mining in Niger: mine workers are not sufficiently informed about health risks, open-air storage of radioactive materials. Workers with cancer are deliberately given a false diagnosis at the company hospital.”

Niger’s uranium mines have been the subject of many environmental and health controversies including leaks; contamination of water, air and soil; the sale of radioactive scrap metal; the use of radioactive ore to build roads; and poorly managed radioactive tailings dumps.

In November 2009, Greenpeace − in collaboration with the French independent laboratory CRIIRAD (Commission for Independent Research and Information about Radioactivity − criirad.org) and the Nigerien NGO network ROTAB (Network of Organizations for Transparency and Budget Analysis − rotabniger.org) − carried out a scientific study of the areas around the Areva mining towns Arlit and Akokan. The groups found:

• In four of the five water samples that Greenpeace collected in the Arlit region, the uranium concentration was above the WHO recommended limit for drinking water.
• A measurement performed at the police station in Akokan showed a radon concentration in the air three to seven times higher than normal levels in the area.
• The concentration of uranium and other radioactive materials in a soil sample collected near the underground mine was found to be about 100 times higher than normal levels in the region, and higher than the international exemption limits.
• On the streets of Akokan, radiation dose rate levels were found to be up to almost 500 times higher than normal background levels. A person spending less than one hour a day at that location would be exposed to more than the maximum allowable annual dose.
• Although Areva claims no contaminated material gets out of the mines anymore, Greenpeace found several pieces of radioactive scrap metal on the local market in Arlit, with radiation dose rates reaching up to 50 times more than the normal background levels. Locals use these materials to build their homes.

The pattern seems to be weak environmental and public health standards which are only addressed − partially − when local or international NGO scrutiny embarrasses Areva, or in response to local worker and citizen protests such as the 5,000-strong demonstration in May 2006.

Some 2,000 students held a protest in Niger’s capital Niamey on April 5, 2013 against Areva to demand their country get a bigger slice of its uranium mining revenues. Marchers held placards saying “No to exploitation and neo-colonialism” and “No to Areva”. Mahamadou Djibo Samaila, secretary general of the Union of Niamey University Students, said: “The partnership in the mining of uranium is very unbalanced to the detriment of our country.”

The Niger Movement for Justice, a largely Tuareg-armed militia active since 2007, has demanded a more equitable distribution of uranium revenue, protection from ecological degradation and access to constitutional rights such as water and waste sanitation, education and electricity.

The government has dismissed the armed civil society movement as anti-democratic ‘drug smugglers’. Yet the government has also complained about Areva’s behaviour. In 2007, the government expelled Dominique Pin, head of Areva Niger, from the country. In February 2013, President Mahamadou Issoufou said the government intends to renegotiate its partnership with Areva for the exploitation of uranium resources.

Reprinted from WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor #765, 1 August 2013

www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitors

Chain Reaction #119, Nov 2013, www.foe.org.au/chain-reaction

A scandal in South Korea concerning the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants, and faked quality assurance certificates, has widened.

In May 2012, five engineers were charged with covering up a potentially dangerous power failure at the Kori-I reactor which led to a rapid rise in the reactor core temperature. The accident occurred because of a failure to follow safety procedures. A manager decided to conceal the incident and to delete records, despite a legal obligation to notify the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission. In October 2012, authorities temporarily shut down two reactors at separate plants after system malfunctions.

Then in November 2012, the scandal involving counterfeit parts and faked certificates erupted. The reactor parts included fuses, switches, heat sensors, and cooling fans. The scandal kept escalating and by the end of November it involved at least 8,601 reactor parts, 10 firms and six reactors and it was revealed the problems had been ongoing for at least 10 years. Plant owner Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) acknowledged possible bribery and collusion by its own staff members as well as corruption by firms supplying reactor parts. Two reactors were taken offline to replace thousands of parts, while replacement parts were fitted to other reactors without taking them offline.

In recent months the scandal has continued to expand:

Late May 2013: Two more reactors were shutdown and the scheduled start of two others was delayed because an anonymous whistleblower revealed that “control cables had been supplied to [the] four reactors with faked certificates even though the part had failed to pass a safety test.”

June 20: Widespread police raids. Prosecutors reveal that the number of plants suspected to have non-compliant parts (or at least paperwork) has widened to include 11 of South Korea’s 23 reactor reactors.

July 8: The former president of KHNP was arrested as part of the ongoing investigation into nuclear industry corruption.

July 10: Search and seizure occurred at Hyundai Heavy Industries after the Busan Prosecutor’s office obtained warrants relating to the nuclear parts scandal.

July 11: Details emerged on the involved parties in the Hyundai headquarters raid, including persons and exchanged funds. Contract bribery is included in the charges.

October: Seoul has selected global ship classifier Lloyd’s Register to review the safety certificates of the country’s nuclear reactors in the wake of a scandal over forged documents, the energy ministry said.

Even before the scandals of the past two years, a 2011 IPSOS survey found 68% opposition to new reactors in South Korea. The proportion of South Koreans who consider nuclear power safe fell from 71% in 2010 to 35% in 2012.