Article Archive

Talking Points in response to the Gerard Henderson PANGEA piece in the Morning Herald 3/23/99

PANGEA is the ultimate in a nuclear waste shell game, not a "solution" to nuclear waste. The global nuclear cartel needs a nuclear toilet so they can continue making more and more and more deadly waste. The only problem is that waste isolation technology is NOT mature. It is not wise to listen to those who would make a fortune contaminating the land and the water when they assure us it will be safe. That is what was said about atmospheric bomb testing and nuclear power generation. Any place the waste is put at this point will leak unless it is actively monitored and maintained. Transportation of the waste for this activity is not justified as the risk of transport out weighs any benefit of relocation.

PANGEA is part of a global nuclear materials and nuclear wastes shell game. The proposal includes bringing wastes from Russia, meanwhile tow other proposals, one brokered by Matt Bunn of Harvard and the other by Tom Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council, also in the U.S. would bring more waste into Russia from Japan, Germany and other countries. This is not a solution, it is smoke and mirrors on a push for global nuclear expansion. The nuclear cartel would have us believe that their deadly technology is the answer to environmental crisis. In fact, for each dollar spent on energy efficiency, six times more CO2 release is prevented, compared to a dollar on new nuclear power capacity.

Australia does have responsibility to high-level nuclear waste because of digging uranium out of the ground. Taking responsibility in the global nuclear arena would be to cease uranium mining, and facilitating the end of nuclear production, not providing a nuclear toilet so that more waste can be made.

Australia has all the pieces to be a leader domestically in renewable energy and with the proper investment could be a global leader. At one point in this continent's history windmills outnumbered people by more than 2 to 1. Even a fraction of such a wind resource deployment, coupled with efficiency in appliances and construction and the tremendous solar potential, Australia could lead the way. Such an industry could teach the developing world how to skip over the need for a fragile and energy-hogging "grid" while helping the brittle systems in North America, Europe and Asia recover from the almost inevitable impacts of Y2K. In situ (on-site) energy production and conservation is the only future that is sustainable and Australia has the natural resources and smarts to make this happen.

Gerard Henderson, and by his report, Jeff Kennett are fixated on belonging and looking good in the Old Boys Club of the world. They apparently do not even know about the New Boys and Girls club as it were where business that is truly devoted to sustainability and walking lightly on this Blue Planet are picking up momentum as we clear into the third millennium AD and leave the Nuclear Age behind as the bad nightmare that it has been. It is time to close the mines, phase out the reactors and keep the waste where it is.

*** the global total of irradiated fuel today in not much more than 100,000 metric tons, or what the PANGEA developers would like to bring to Australia.

It is misleading to say PANGEA would operate for 40 years. The waste that would go there will be hazardous for a quarter to half a million years. Irradiated fuel contains more than 95% of the radioactivity of the Nuclear Age. The worlds nuclear weapons complexes and other industries combined are less than 5% of the waste burden. It is called "spent fuel" by the nuclear industry, but that is nuke-speak designed to confuse. Irradiated nuclear fuel 5 years out of the reactor is a million times more radioactive than uranium fuel before it goes in the reactor. If unshielded it delivers a lethal dose of radiation in less than a minute.

another thought:

A big reason not to consider PANGEA is that David Pentz and John Voss and the PANGEA gang will get rich just displaying their scheme as a viable option in the international waste trade. Wall Street and the World Bank have both pronounced nuclear as an uneconomical power source and will not invest in it. It is only suckers who are buying now. On the other hand a "viable waste solution" -- even if it remains hypothetical for the rest of Pentz and Voss's life is a choice commodity to offer an industry with their backs to their wall and their pants full of highly radioactive waste.