Category: Uncategorised

Jim Green, Climate Spectator, 12 March 2014

www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/12/energy-markets/fukushima-apologies-and-apologists

It has been a sad and sorry year in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture. Three years after the March 2011 nuclear disaster 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 8800 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 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 1000 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 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 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 1000-3000 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 3000 cancer deaths, from radiation biologist and independent consultant Dr Ian Fairlie.

[Update: Dr Fairlie’s latest estimate is about 5,000 deaths, based on UNSCEAR’s March 2014 collective dose estimates.]

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 1632 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 per cent 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, 1656 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 last month. That number exceeds the 1607 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 Brook and 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.

Jim Green, 8 April 2014, Online Opinion

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16197

The March 24−25 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in the Netherlands was attended by representatives from over 50 countries. The NSS issued a banal communiqué, almost all of which was decided in advance. The closest the communiqué comes to substance is to identify a range of “voluntary measures” which states “may consider taking” such as publishing information about national laws, exchanging good practices, and further developing training of personnel involved in nuclear security. Elsewhere the communiqué is beyond parody: “Sharing good practices, without detriment to the protection of sensitive information, might also be beneficial.”

To be fair, useful work is being done in some countries to tighten nuclear security. But it’s too little and too slow, and the concept of nuclear security is too narrowly defined. The very first dot-point in the NSS communiqué insists that “measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of States to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes”.

Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, noted in 2009 that “even so-called arms controllers fall over themselves trying to establish their bona fides by supporting nuclear energy development and devising painless proposals …” That mentality was in evidence at the NSS. Gilinsky advocates a reversal of priorities: “Security should come first − not as an afterthought. We should support as much nuclear power as is consistent with international security; not as much security as the spread of nuclear power will allow.”

Nuclear security architecture

The NSS website says that Summit participants “laid the basis for an efficient and sustainable nuclear security architecture, consisting of treaties, guidelines and international organisations.”

But there was no discussion, and no outcomes, regarding vital architecture such as the flawed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The security threats posed by nuclear weapons arsenals were beyond the scope of the NSS, and the discussion on nuclear weapons was vacuous and steered well away from the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfil their NPT disarmament obligations. US President Barack Obama’s ultra-lite contribution to the NSS went no further than a reworking of the old saying that a single nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day: “Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city … would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.”

Nor did the NSS produce any outcomes regarding another vital piece of nuclear architecture: the flawed safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A recent report about the safeguarding of nuclear fuel cycle facilities, by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas, concludes: “Theoretical solutions to improve IAEA safeguards have been discussed for decades. However, proprietary, economic, and sovereignty concerns have limited the extent to which countries and private companies have implemented these theoretical solutions. Even in states that cooperate with the IAEA and apply sophisticated accounting mechanisms, such as Japan, safeguards at fuel-cycle facilities currently cannot come close to achieving their explicit goal of providing timely warning of a suspected diversion of one bomb’s worth of fissile material. The prospects are even worse in states that resist cooperation and may wish to keep open their weapons option, such as Iran, and at facilities that employ first-generation safeguards.”

Yet the NSS did not even consider the safeguards system. The broad problem was succinctly explained by former South Australian Premier Mike Rann many years ago, before he decided that his political ambitions were more important than speaking truth to power: “Again and again it has been demonstrated here and overseas that when problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial considerations will come first.”

Australia’s uranium customers

Nuclear security standards are demonstrably inadequate in a number of Australia’s uranium customer countries. Nuclear security risk factors in Russia include political instability, ineffective governance, pervasive corruption, and the presence of groups determined to obtain nuclear materials. A March 2014 report by Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs notes that Russia has the world’s largest nuclear stock­piles stored in the world’s largest number of buildings and bunkers, and that underfunding raises serious questions about whether effective nuclear security and accounting systems can be sustained.”

In a 2011 report, the US Director of National Intelligence discussed nuclear smuggling in Russia: “We assess that undetected smuggling of weapons-usable nuclear material has occurred, but we do not know the total amount of material that has been diverted or stolen since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We judge it highly unlikely that Russian authorities have been able to recover all of the stolen material.”

Nuclear security lapses have repeatedly made headlines in the USA over the past two years. Examples include:

• the Air Force removed 17 officers assigned to guard nuclear-armed missiles after finding safety violations, potential violations in protecting codes and attitude problems;
• Air Force officers with nuclear launch authority were twice caught napping with the blast door open;
• an inspection by the Department of Energy’s Inspector General found that Los Alamos National Laboratory failed to meet its goal of 99% accuracy in accounting for the lab’s inventory of weapons-grade nuclear materials, including plutonium;
• a report by LBJ School of Public Affairs at Texas University detailed inadequate protection of US commercial and research nuclear facilities;
• at least 82 missile launch officers from an Air Force base in Montana face disciplinary action for cheating on monthly proficiency tests or for being aware of cheating and failing to report it. Former missile-launch control officer Bruce Blair said cheating “has been extensive and pervasive at all the missile bases going back for decades”;
• missile launch officers in two different incidents were found to have violated security regulations designed to prevent intruders from seizing their ICBM-firing keys;
• nineteen officers at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, were forced to surrender their launch authority because of performance and attitude problems;
• the Navy has opened an investigation into accusations of widespread cheating by sailors at an atomic-reactor training school in South Carolina;
• the congressionally mandated Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise says that drastic reforms are crucial to address “systemic” management shortcomings at the National Nuclear Security Administration; and
• former military contractor Benjamin Bishop will plead guilty to providing nuclear-arms secrets and other classified information to his Chinese girlfriend.

Time magazine describes the most embarrassing lapse: “In the U.S. in 2012, an 82-year old nun and two other peace protestors broke into Y-12, a facility in Tennessee that contains the world’s largest repository of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in metal form and until the incident was colloquially known as “the Fort Knox of HEU” for its state-of-the-art security equipment. The nun bypassed multiple intrusion-detection systems because faulty cameras had not been replaced and guards at the central alarm station had grown weary of manually validating sensors that produced frequent false alarms. When the protestors started hammering on the side of a building that contains enough HEU for hundreds of weapons, the guards inside assumed the noise was coming from construction workers that they had not been told were coming. She and her fellow protestors were eventually challenged by a single guard.”

The United States’ credibility is also undermined by its failure to ratify the 2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Moreover US federal government budget requests and allocations for nuclear security have been reduced repeatedly since 2011, with programs such as the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the International Material Protection and Cooperation program, Securing the Cities, and a program to replace HEU research reactor fuel with low-enriched uranium, suffering.

Another ‘good news’ story from the NSS was an announcement that Japan would send “hundreds of kilograms” of HEU and separated plutonium to the US. But Japan continues to expand its stockpile of 44 tons of separated plutonium (nine tons in Japan, 35 tons at reprocessing plants in Europe) and it continues to advance plans to start up the Rokkasho reprocessing plant which would result in an additional eight tons of separated plutonium annually. With no hint of irony, the US/Japan joint statement announcing the plan to send HEU and separated plutonium from Japan to the US concludes: “Our two countries encourage others to consider what they can do to further HEU and plutonium minimization.”

There is a long history of lax nuclear security in Japan. The US has raised concerns about inadequate security at Rokkasho and other nuclear plants in Japan. In November 2013, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority admonished the Japan Atomic Energy Agency for failing to take appropriate measures to protect its Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor from potential terrorist attacks.

The March 2014 report by Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs details significant nuclear security gaps in a number of countries that import uranium − or want to import uranium − from Australia. For example it states that India’s approach to nuclear security is “highly secretive”; the threats India’s nuclear security systems must confront “appear to be significant”; India faces challenges “both from domestic terrorist organizations and from attacks by terrorist organizations based in Pakistan”; India also confronts “significant insider corruption”; and the risk of theft or sabotage in India “may be uncomfortably high”.

So what is Australia doing?

So what is the Australian government doing about the vital problem of inadequate nuclear security standards in uranium customer countries? And what are the uranium mining companies operating in Australia doing about the problem? The short answer is: nothing. They adopt a head in the sand approach, just as they ignored the disgraceful nuclear safety standards in Japan that led to the Fukushima disaster.

There are simple steps that could be taken − for example uranium exports could be made contingent on customer countries ratifying the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth

Adam Sharah

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

In October 2012, Queensland’s Liberal-National Party (LNP) government broke a commitment made repeatedly before and after the state election by overturning the ban on uranium mining. The Newman government set up an independent Uranium Mining Implementation Committee (UMIC) to investigate and implement a plan to open a uranium industry in Queensland.

The areas most likely to be mined are Westmoreland near the NT border, Valhalla and other sites near Mt Isa, and Ben Lomond located 50kms from Townsville, though evidence exists there are plans for exploration at numerous other sites throughout Queensland.

Unless Queensland ports are opened up to uranium shipments, yellowcake will be trucked over vast distances by road-trains across Queensland to ports in the Northern Territory and South Australia. In recent submissions the UMIC confirmed North Queensland Bulk Port’s capacity to manage the transportation, storage and shipping of radioactive yellowcake. If these submissions are successful radioactive yellowcake may be trucked through Queensland communities and shipped over the Great Barrier Reef via Mackay Port, Townsville Port or Abbott Point.

In a submission dated 17 December 2012, the Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer of North Queensland Bulk Port Corporation, Gary Riches, stated: “The Port of Mackay is capable of handling the break bulk cargo typically associated with the development and maintenance of mining and associated infrastructure. The uranium industry is seen as an opportunity to utilise existing terminal capacity delivering economies of scale and improving economic activity in Central and Regional Queensland.”

Barry Holden, CEO of Townsville Port, told the ABC the port was capable of resuming uranium export: “It’s just another product, it’s handled in containers as we understand it. If it’s a legal trade in Queensland, given that we’re a government-owned corporation, then I’d expect it would be handled through the port, yes indeed.”

In an interview with the ABC in response to the submissions, Mark Bailey from Keep Queensland Nuclear Free stated: “The Ports have made it very clear in writing that they want to export radioactive uranium through the Port and across the Great Barrier Reef. This means radioactive yellowcake being regularly transported through the streets of either Mackay or Townsville. To protect tourism jobs, local residents and the reef we call upon the Newman government to rule out exporting uranium through the Ports. A very real risk is if there is a fiery accident involving a uranium truck, the local area could be contaminated with radioactivity.”

In early 2013, Queensland graziers expressed their concerns about Queensland resuming uranium mining. Due to inadequate clean-up efforts and the lack of containment of radioactive dust, to this day the former Mary Kathleen mine located on the Selwyn Range between Concurry and Mt Isa remains a toxic legacy. In 1984, over a million litres of saline, metal and radionuclide rich water was released from Mary Kathleen’s evaporation ponds during a wet season. Thirty years later, toxic waste water is still being drained via purposely-built seepage systems. At the Cameron River, due to the use of mined rocks sourced from the site for the construction of bridges, apart from weeds, plant species are unable to grow. Though it is common knowledge amongst locals that the creeks are not safe for swimming or fishing, there are no signs in place to warn of the dangers.

In December 2013, Mark Bailey and myself campaigned in Mackay, Cairns and Townsville to raise awareness about the dangers associated with uranium mining. Although Townsville’s burgeoning economy is entirely reliant on mining, the community response has been encouraging. In Townsville a local action group called CAMBL − Citizens Against Mining Ben Lomond − has formed. Due to a toxic spill in Townsville in the 1980’s, local residents are concerned about the transportation of uranium through a primary source of Townsville’s water, the Burdekin River catchment − the second largest catchment draining into the Great Barrier Reef after the Fitzroy River catchment.

A toxic spill in the Burdekin catchment could be catastrophic for the largest living structure on Earth, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a unique ecosystem already under threat due to dredging to accommodate proposed port and shipping lane expansions. In April 2013, Tim Badman from the International Union for Conservation of Nature told the ABC that shipping yellowcake would be a “new threat to the Great Barrier Reef” and a “surprising activity to find in any natural world heritage site”. Russell Reichelt from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority agrees it would be a concern.

CAMBL is using a report issued by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology to boost their objection to the Ben Lomond uranium mine: “With only six months to go until uranium mine applications are lodged in Queensland, we are deeply concerned that this isn’t enough time for proper peer reviewing of this new study and for any new knowledge to be applied to assessing any North Queensland uranium mines,” CAMBL spokesperson Mark Harrison said. “One of the aspects from this study is that in areas with high rainfall it spreads even further. We have that here. These mining companies are going to tell us that they’re going to do everything by the book, but they can’t guarantee 100 per cent that this can’t happen and that’s the main issue.”

French company Minatome undertook trial mining at Ben Lomond in the early 1980s. Federal MP Bob Katter spoke at length about Ben Lomond in Parliament on 1 November 2005. He noted that Minatome initially denied reports of a radioactive spill, but then changed its story and claimed that the spill posed no risk and did not reach the water system from which 210,000 people drank.

Katter continued the story: “For the next two or three weeks they held out with that story. Further evidence was produced in which they admitted that it had been a dangerous level. Yes, it was about 10,000 times higher than what the health agencies in Australia regarded as an acceptable level. After six weeks, we got rid of lie number two. I think it was at about week 8 or week 12 when, as a state member of parliament, I insisted upon going up to the site. Just before I went up to the site, the company admitted − remember, it was not just the company but also the agency set up by the government to protect us who were telling lies − that the spill had reached the creek which ran into the Burdekin River, which provided the drinking water for 210,000 people. We had been told three sets of lies over a period of three months.”

In 2014, the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, Friends of the Earth and Keep Queensland Nuclear Free will extend the campaign to include central and far north west and central Queensland. The pro-mining right-wing political landscape, the economic apartheid and desperation experienced by remote Aboriginal communities, the geographical isolation of the proposed uranium mine sites and the sheer vastness of the areas threatened by mining exploration, combine to present a unique set of challenges for the campaign.

Many of the same Aboriginal family groups whose Traditional Lands are already mined for uranium in the NT, or are under threat due to the proposed national nuclear waste dump at Tennant Creek, have close cultural and family ties to groups in the regional towns located near the sites earmarked for uranium mining and exploration in Queensland. Providing a platform for resistance for Aboriginal groups opposed to uranium mining on their Country will require intensive and careful strategic planning and commitment and consistent funding.

Adam Sharah is an anti-nuclear campaigner with the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance.

More information:

• Australian Nuclear Free Alliance: www.anfa.org.au
• Keep Queensland Nuclear Free: https://www.facebook.com/KeepQldNuclearFree
• Citizens Against Mining Ben Lomond: https://www.facebook.com/CitizensAgainstMiningBenLomondCambl

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