|
Chapter Eleven Summary of Major Findings
Chapter eight identified that exploitation and injustice towards service personnel were synonymous with using them as guinea pigs and making the work in dangerous environments on one hand, and withholding their medical records on the other. Several examples were also given in this chapter (see pp. 106-107,120-123) of service personnel being used collectively and individually as nuclear test subjects with much of the evidence coming from the Royal Commission Report. Examples were also given of service personnel working in dangerous situations ie as divers (see p. 108), aircrew and transport duties, and there have been many confirmed cases of radiation induced disease in service personnel documented in this thesis as proof of their exposure. Although both British and Australian nuclear veterans have complained of the unjust withholding of medical records by their respective governments, only with British veterans is the claim substantiated in the form of a ruling by three dissenting judges who castigated the British Government for not adequately protecting the health of its service personnel and of poor record keeping (see pp. 117- 118). In Australia, nuclear veteran Bill Hammond was only given his medical records recently after having been refused them since 1970, (Kelly R., 1999, p. 10) indicating that the records had always existed and that the Australian Government was being obstructionist in refusing to supply them. One can only speculate as to the reason the medical records are withheld from nuclear veterans, since neither government has ever admitted withholding them, and any facts likely to offer an indication of their motives are clouded in secrecy. |
|
Similarly chapter nine determined that racism, human rights abuse, exploitation and colonialism of Aborigines were reflected in indifference to Aboriginal health and welfare, appropriation of Indigenous land for nuclear testing, forced removal of the owners from their land and incarceration in Yalata, damaging and polluting the acquired land and refusing to pay compensation and bear the cost of its rehabilitation.
In its conclusion chapter nine demonstrated the indifference of the Test Authority to Aboriginal health and welfare by citing its ignorance of the Aboriginal culture, customs, numbers and distribution – information needed to predict their presence in areas and thus ensure their safety. It established the inadequacy of air and land patrols (see pp. 129-131) and recalled two prominent incidents, those of the Milpuddie and Stevens (see pp. 133-135), where atomic test range security failed dismally leading to Aboriginal loss of life. The chapter also cited the Black Mist incident (see pp. 135-141), claims of which were first ignored and later tenaciously disputed as similarly demonstrating Test Authority indifference and callousness.
Furthermore, seizing of Aboriginal land for nuclear testing without any consultation with the Aboriginal owners and driving those same owners into incarceration at Yalata, is the process by which Test Authority exploitation of Aborigines is best seen. To them Yalata was an alien place with which they had no spiritual connection, and evidence presented to the Royal Commission and a South Australian select parliamentary hearing testified to the inhuman conditions existing there (see p. 142). The accusation that Britain behaved as a colonialist power is supported not only by the act of seizing Aboriginal land for nuclear testing and incarcerating the tribal owners, but that the land was rendered uninhabitable by nuclear testing, for which Britain initially refused to pay compensation and reparation.
Although the Maralinga clean-up discussed in chapter ten does not contribute to proving violation of peace studies tenets as do the two previously considered chapters, it raises important and worrying issues such as Federal Government corruption, lack of accountability of private companies and of unsafe disposal practices of radioactive waste. These issues have implications which stretch far beyond those immediately pertinent to this thesis. For instance, as was described in chapter ten, the Australian Government has manipulated to have a supportive company appointed to control the costly ISV program and used that company and pliable semi-government organisations to justify abandoning the process. The government then cited national waste dumping legislation not intended to cover plutonium waste, to give the chosen cheaper method of disposal credibility. |
|
By far the worse consequence of the government’s cost-cutting exercise – that of burying the nuclear waste including plutonium as an alternative to using the expensive ISV process, is that the buried plutonium and the additional eight tonnes of depleted uranium (see pp. 82-83 re Kittens, Tims and Rats trials) buried in the same manner, will eventually find its way to the surface. Evidence from Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and in Amsterdam where an Israeli depleted uranium-carrying aircraft crashed and burned (Lebrecht H., 2001, p.9), shows that depleted uranium is a prolific cause of cancers, including leukemia, when either inhaled, injected or ingested into the human body. Should the plutonium and depleted uranium waste buried at Maralinga ever find it its way to the surface via the mediums of erosion, flood or earthquake, countless generations of Aboriginal children will suffer as a result.
Disposal and containment of nuclear waste from the British atomic tests at Maralinga is the Australian continent’s first encounter with nuclear waste disposal. However if demands that intermediate and low level nuclear waste (LLW and ILW) from the Lucus Heights Reactor in Sydney are accepted for disposal in Australia, it will not be the last. Already Pangea Resources Australia Pty. Ltd., an 80% owned British company, is seeking permission to store international waste consisting of 700 canisters of HLW, 20,000 cubic metres of ILW and 2000 tonnes of spent fuel per annum in a desert facility in either Western Australia or South Australia (McSorley J., n.d., p. 1). It is proposed that the site remains open for forty years.
The British Government selected the joint Western Australian-South Australian desert region as a potential site to contain her toxic waste because of its geological stability, and Pangea Resources, were speaking on behalf of themselves and the British Government, when they envisaged a deep repository,
located within a natural geological system, will remain stable for millions of years…The site will have high isolation characteristics, including flat landscape, low rainfall, high evaporation, stable geology and hydrogeology … |
|
Speaking on ABC radio (‘Ockham’s Razor’, 25/07/1999), John Veevers, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Macquarie University, scotched Pangea’s claims by first pointing to the limitations of human integrity when self interest is involved as, nor the British Government whose promises on cleaning up the Maralinga atomic test site were so contemptuously broken. Yet at Maralinga, the Radiation hazard, real as it was, was infinitesimally small compared with the enormous toxicity of the [proposed] 250,000 tonnes of radioactive waste promised to Australia (ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, p. 2).
He goes on to cite three separate recent, unexpected and preventable technical disasters of Sydney’s three week long water pollution disaster, the gas plant fire in Victoria and the failure of a crucial electric cable in Auckland’s power system which took six weeks to repair. These three examples he claims, simply prove the no complex system is infallible and that Britain’s promise of thousands of years of trouble free toxic waste storage ‘is arrogant fantasy’ (ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, p. 3). Nor does Veevers agree with Pangea’s assertions of geological stability. For he claims that far from the selected potential dumping site being stable ‘In the short span since 1900, seismological observatories have recorded epicentres of several earthquakes of Magnitude 5 or 6’ (ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, pp. 3-4). Consistent with the claims made earlier for Britain’s motive of turning to Australia as a solution to her radioactive waste problems, Veevers quotes Britain’s House of Lords after the rejection of a disposal facility at Sellafield as saying ‘the United Kingdom was left with no practical plan for the disposal of its toxic waste. We conclude that phased disposal in a deep depository [in Britain] is feasible and desirable’(ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, p. 5). The Lords went on to recommend a ‘phased approach’ taken cautiously to allow expertise to develop and avoid irreversible mistakes. They called for the setting up of ‘Nuclear Waste Management Commission’ and for public consultation ‘with the object of defining a widely acceptable solution’(ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, p. 5). John Veevers contrasts the stringent recommendations in the UK with the British Government’s ‘reckless proposal’ for a waste dump in Australia. He suggests that the House of lords made no suggestion of Britain’s nuclear waste being exported overseas especially given the risk of a shipping disaster during the long voyage from the UK to Australia (ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, p. 5). In concluding Veevers suggests that ‘Unable to find a politically acceptable permanent site of waste disposal in Britain, the British Government turned to Australia for a solution. We are asked to do what they won’t do at home’ (ABC 1999, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, pp. 5-6). Perhaps arrogant colonialist attitudes are still alive and well in Great Britain. |
|
Any consideration of the facts presented in this chapter in order to decide if containment of other nations’ nuclear waste should proceed in Australia, must include the issues of possible government corruption and the lack of accountability of commercial enterprises. In the era of economic globalisation, governments are more likely to be co-conspirators of powerful corporations – parties to secret dealings from which the Australian community is excluded, than of sentinels guarding the rights and interests of Australian society and individual alike. It follows that if the dump that the British Government and Pangea want to establish in Australia goes ahead, we will be thinking in terms of 20,000 to 25,000 successive Australian Governments over the nuclear waste dump’s life (allowing a conservative 100,000 years lifetime), each committed to ensuring the good condition of the facility and being prepared to spend public money if needed to maintain it. Perhaps we had better start hoping that none of those 20,000 to 25,000 governments is in anyway as bad as our present Federal government, that abandoned an expensive but effective ISV process (see pp. 157-160) for a hole in the ground just to save money. Should we not also be concerned in this age of economic rationalism, that unaccountable private companies, perhaps protected by free market treaties, are involved in so crucial an activity as maintaining our nuclear waste facility for the next hundred thousand years? Or will they relinquish any responsibility after the dump is no longer a source of profit - perhaps when humankind has found an alternative to nuclear power and there is no more nuclear waste to store there? In answer it seems that we have returned to worrying whether 20,000 to 25,000 successive Australian Governments have the necessary fortitude to maintain the dump for the next 100,000 years, some twenty times longer than the pyramids have existed! The reality is that it is unrealistic to believe that any organisation, neither government nor private body will seriously commit itself to maintaining a nuclear dump for the next 100,000 years. |
|
It is argued here that if Australia literally threw open her doors to the world’s nuclear waste, then the period of gratitude and compensation would only last a human lifetime – within living memory and no longer. For in a world of change and adaptation, nuclear power will be increasingly seen as the wanton polluter that it is, and not producer of clean energy that nuclear technologists promised a post-war world. Soon cleaner energy forms, for example hydrogen obtained using renewable energy resources, will become widespread and those who were addicted to nuclear energy (and hopefully nuclear weapons) will try to forget their association with them – the perception of ‘out of sight out of mind’. It is then that Australia will be left holding the nuclear waste baby. Better then that the world’s nuclear industry be obliged to retain and store its nuclear waste, as a continual reminder to the world of the downside of nuclear power that it tried to ignore. A similar argument is directed to those who spawned nuclear weapons. This attitude will help hasten the acceptance of renewable and non-polluting energy resources.
There are other areas of concern arising from nuclear dumping in Australia which future researchers will have to consider. The first involves possible World Trade Organisation (WTO) international treaties, which could require Australia to become responsible for the world’s nuclear waste, given her vast uninhabited regions deemed suitable for waste depositories. The second is the possibility of the international media or sympathetic Australian politicians captivating the Australian public into adopting a pro-nuclear dumping stance. Transportation of nuclear waste is a third issue and one that argues against waste depositories being established in Australia. Since not only are there real possibilities of sea, rail and road accidents capable of polluting large areas with radiation, but also the enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer in protecting waste shipments from demonstrators and possible terrorist attacks. The German Government has been faced with a cost of $US100 million on at least two occasions, for shipping and protecting nuclear waste inside Germany’s borders (Mariotte, 1998, 9. 1-3)
Depleted uranium is important to radioactive waste dumping considerations, since it demonstrates the danger of inadequately contained nuclear material permeating to the surface. There are eight tonnes of DU buried at Maralinga (see p. 86), and Allan Parkinson (2000, pers. comm. p. 4) who supervised the collection of the DU claims that only pieces larger than a ten cent piece were buried, the smaller pieces ranging down to aerosol-sized particles, remaining on the surface. International anti-nuclear activist and physician Helen Caldicott describes the effects of inhaling alpha emitting DU particles as ‘can damage cells in lung, bone, kidney, prostate, gut and brain causing cancer in those organs’. She adds that after inhalation ‘it is solubilized and transferred from the lung to other organs, including liver, fat and muscle. Eventually it is excreted through the kidney where because it is a heavy metal, it induces nephritis, a chronic kidney disease’ (Caldicott H., 2001, pers. comm., p. 1). |
|
In 1995 David Muller of South Movement, an anti-war movement which originated at Melbourne’s La Trobe University, interviewed Professor Siegwart-Horst Guenther, a concentration camp survivor, epidemiologist and pro-rights campaigner for those suffering the effects of the Gulf War (Muller D., 1995, p. 1). During the interview Professor Guenther made the following points concerning depleted uranium and its effects:
· Since DU is pyphoric, DU munitions eg antitank shells, explode on impact producing mists of highly toxic and radioactive products. · In Southern Iraq where DU munitions were used, people already suffering from low immunity due to sanctions are especially susceptible to DU effects. These include, Herpes and Zoster infections, numerous premature births, a high percentage (26.8 % according to University of Baghdad) of congenital malformations. Many of children die in the countryside and are buried without autopsy to determine cause of death. Ten percent of lambs are born deformed. · Greenpeace estimates indicate that up to 300 tonnes of DU in the form of radioactive dust remain on the battle fields of Kuwait and Iraq leading to fears of ground water pollution in addition to fears of various cancers in local populations. · There is a similarity between DU contamination-caused illness in Iraq and Gulf War syndrome suffered by US and British soldiers who served in the same conflict. · Since DU is costly to dispose of, the commercial enrichment plants in various countries give it to the military. Thus putting them in collusion with the military and in breach of promise, for example with Australia, not to use yellow cake for military purposes. |
|
The thesis started by discussing the birth of nuclear weapons and it is fitting that it can end by considering their possible demise. In a national survey on nuclear weapons by the Roy Morgan Research Company that was commissioned jointly by the Australian Peace Committee (South Australian Branch) and the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign (AABC), and taken on November 11 & 12, 1998, the results were,
Q1 was: All nuclear weapons should be destroyed.
Do you agree or disagree? (i.e. 87% of people agreed) Q2 was: Australia has signed treaties banning chemical and biological weapons. Australia should help negotiate a global treaty to ban and destroy all nuclear weapons. Do you agree or disagree? |
|
For a final comment for the conclusion of this thesis, one can go no further than to quote Dr Hannah Middleton’s response to the results of this survey. Dr Middleton was the president of the Australian Anti-Bases Coalition which co-sponsored the survey. On seeing the survey’s results she said,
We call upon the Howard Government to stop dragging its feet at the UN. Instead of doing what the United States wants, Australia should vote for the resolution, reflecting the will of the Australian people. We have lived under the shadow of nuclear annihilation since 1945. We have never had a better chance than now to get rid of them. This is what the Australian people want. This is what our Government should vote for at the United Nations.
This thesis has considered the consequences of Britain’s decision to develop her own nuclear weapons, however it is tempting to imagine the possibilities, had she shunned atomic weapons and instead called for world peace. Let us suppose for a moment then that Britain had stepped back from the horrors of World War 2 and the Cold War, and refused to acquire her own nuclear weapons, instead calling for world peace and complete nuclear and conventional weapons disarmament. Suppose also that she had offered friendship and support unilaterally to both sides of the cold war conflict. Then it is not hard to imagine that Britain would have become a rallying point for the growing number of anti-nuclear groups and peace activists of both sides of the iron curtain, who were shocked and saddened by their memories of World War 2 and feared that the Cold War would be likely to precipitate a conflict of far worse proportions. Their responses with Britain’s support may have freed the world from the threat of nuclear annihilation that exists even to the present day, and changed the course of the world forever. |