The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Who's watching the nuclear watchdog? > Comments

Who's watching the nuclear watchdog? : Comments

By Richard Broinowski and Tilman Ruff, published 10/9/2007

The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office is ineffectual when it comes to protecting the interests of the Australian people in preventing nuclear proliferation.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I agree the watchdog could be hoodwinked; I disagree they are ineffectual. A uranium customer has to be above suspicion or they will have to shop somewhere else. If Australia thinks something is not right and Canada agrees then the customer may have their bomb material but there won't be any more even for civilian use.

The monitoring group would have extra clout if Australia took back high level waste. I'd guess at least half the outback has suitable sites.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 10 September 2007 9:29:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another chapter in “The Rake’s Progress” of nuclear matters.
Many have built up since Marie and Pierre Curie found that tinkering with uranium could damage human flesh. Both good and bad.

Painting luminous watch faces was effective, but bad for the girls doing the painting while licking tips of the radio-active brushes, early 20th century.
“Nuclear power will be too cheap to be worth metering” was good for marketing the industry in 1949; but bad for reality.

Nuclear safety chief during British testing in Australia, Ernest Titterton, provided bad service to unprotected Australian ground crews hosing down contaminated aircraft. Also of dubious benefit were his statements that no human being had ever been killed by the nuclear power industry up to that time.

“Operation Ploughshare” (nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes) of the late 1960’s seemed a good marketing scheme for the industry, and acceptable to the Australian Government (alone in the world). It did not proceed because it was not a good idea, economically, for the iron-ore miner who found he would have to pay a higher cost than for a conventionally-constructed port. The Western Australian fishing/crayfish industry between Cape Keraudren and Perth thought it a thoroughly bad idea.

The French would have thought the Chernobyl accident horrible, but to them a good side would have been its masking the commencement of misbehavior by one of their own nuclear facilities at the time.

And so-on. Some benefits are sprinkled over the vast heap; but gloss should not be applied without recognition of the unavoidable dross. Unfortunately, with nuclear power, it never has; and there is no indication of change. Thanks for a sobering and lucid article.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:11:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SO MANY PRESSURES ON ASNO INCLUDING TRADE PROMOTION

There are few mysteries about Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO)'s lack of independence or impact.

It is under the Foreign Affairs portfolio and its located in the Foreign Affairs (R G Casey) Building in Canberra http://www.asno.dfat.gov.au/. I wouldn't be surprised if it had less than 20 fulltime DFAT people - see front page (A) of DFAT organisation list http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/dfat_org.pdf

Its portfolio and location mean that it is basically a policy body that would need to coordinate its findings and advice with other policy interests (Divisions) in DFAT including TRADE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (Page C).

ASNO would also have to tread carefully concerning Downer and his all powerful (unaccountable) Minister's Office.

Unsurprisingly there was no peep out of ASNO questioning Downer's recent big moment at APEC - Australia signing a Uranium deal with Russia.

Making the Minister look good is essential for all Foreign Affairs portfolio bodies, including ASNO.

The danger that Australia is selling off its Uranium quickly, cheaply and too early seems to be lost on a Minister desperate for some final runs on the board.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 10 September 2007 3:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office is ineffective – it is a notion of a non-proliferation is a laughing stock itself.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 10 September 2007 7:30:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The watchdog is too far away from the reactor. That Im sure of. Back in 1997 I spoke to an ANSTO technicians wife and she said quote, "They built themselves a bomb. They assembled it then pulled it apart". Sadly I didnt find out much more than that. When her husband found out she had spoken to me about the construction he vigorously denied her story. Some months later he resigned and moved away. I think the pressure was too much for him. After many weeks, not mentioning names, I approached the watchdog (it was down in Canberra) and all I got was "Oh,no. That couldnt happen. We watch the reactor all the time". Everyone had a denial..yet to this day I still believe the lady. She was as sincere as sincere as sincere. Theres been lots of unusual stories come out of Lucas Heights over many years and they re-tightend security after my complaint. Anyone else got a bomb story?
Posted by Gibo, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 8:26:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sharing concerns of Australian-style employment on mateship-biological rather than professional merits must anyway to admit that living with delusive relative is not synonymous to really committing all this relative says.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 12 September 2007 1:06:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy