After watching the program on SBS, Monday,
January 12, 2009 - where it showed that the
US has been depositing its military toxic
pollutants in various parts of the world,
with the resultant contaminating effect of
genetically damaging the local populations.

I can't help but wonder what would our Government
say if approached by the US? Apparently the US
is seeking new sites, and we can fully expect
to be approached.

Should our government agree to giving the US sites
in any of our Northern Territories?

Your thoughts?

Hi Foxy.
I think, if asked, Australia would receive their contaminanted stuff.

What could we really do?

We rely on the USA coming to our aid if Indonesia or China get stroppy.

They have their secret bases here and that gives them a huge hold over good old Australia.

In a sense I think they own us and we are bound to follow.
Not that Im complaining though.
Better the American we know than the asian who would dominate and oppress us.

Hmmmm...hotdogs.

I must agree with Gibo here: we don't really have a choice.

But why limit the discussion to "military toxic pollutants"?
America generates toxic pollutants of all kinds (not just military), that harm both body and mind. As individuals we can avoid some of those, for example by keeping away from McDonalds, Coca Cola, TV and commercial ads, but as a nation, Gibo is right - the alternatives are no better.

A bit of a diversion. The Independent recently reported that the marine territory of Somalia is being used as a dumping ground for all sorts of dangerous toxic waste. Maybe the US and Co. doesn't need Australia after all.

Seriously though, the whole business is dodgy. As the Somalian Government is dysfunctional, it seems that global environmental polluters are taking full advantage. Somali pirates have different ideas and have taken on a freelance role. All power to them if it keeps the bad boys honest.

Dear Gibo, Yuyutsu, RobP,

Gibo, Yuyutsu, you're both probably right -
our Government will agree with whatever
the US asks (Howard's set the example), unfortunately.

What is of great concern to me is the fact that
geologically Australia has underground porous
water catchment areas that farmers, rural towns,
places like Adelaide, rely on bore water from these
underground storage areas, and any contaminants
buried near the surface will permeate into these
underground water storage areas poisoning the water.
That is the danger of allowing toxic waste to be stored
in Australia.

And Gibo, hot dogs won't be enjoyable, if you've got
nothing to wash them down with... (just a thought).

RobP, I think the US is very interested in Australia
as a dumping ground for their waste, because they've
already stuffed up worldwide with their pollutants.
(Phillipines is a prime example).

Anyway, we should also be concerned with what's really
happening on the US bases that are on our shores.
In the film I saw there were interviews with defense
experts and environmentalists as well as close-up
shots of rotting, leaking drums, and
awful information about the severe environmental
damage caused by the US basis in the Phillipines.

It should send us warning signals. The US bases in OZ
need to be checked for the damage they're doing, and
get them to clean up their act.

But, I guess I'm dreaming, right?

I think we’ve got plenty of choice. All Rudd needs to do is to point how good an ally li’’le ol’ Oz to big old Yankeeland, and that one mate shouldn’t be asking a really good mate to take any of its toxic waste…..especially when there are plenty of other places to put the stuff, where relationships are not so good and those in charge are much more likely to say; ‘yes, we’ll take your toxic garbage if you pay us to do so….and um…you really don’t have to pay us very much, if you don’t complain about a small number of government officials embezzling all the funds!

Likes the Pepsie Max Foxy... and sometimes a Coke in a glass bottle just like childhood 50's.
Funny about that US base up Western Australia (Port Hedland?) where 'something' seems to interfering with Qantas flights.

Dear Gibo,

My weakness is 'Diet Coke.'

Interference with Qantas flights?

That's scary.

Foxy,

I think the US would be most interested in taking the path of least resistance whatever that was. With any luck, being a first-world country with our democratic principles etc, it won't be us.

But under the last Liberal Government there seemed to be a flutter of interest in actually asking the rest of the world for their radioactive waste. No doubt, big business saw the dollar signs in their eyes and lobbied Government.

If Rudd decided to take that path, I wonder what the Labor Premiers would be telling him? Extracting an arm and a leg in compensation ... or kicking his shins under the table at COAG maybe?

The problem with checking contaminated sites after the event is that it doesn't actually solve the problem, it only manages it and it's rather costly. Best not to have the problem at all, I think. Once chemical contamination is in the environment, it can't easily be cleaned up. An interesting point is that the real mop-up operation is done by bacteria would you believe.

I seem to remember seeing an Aussie invention in which the nuclear waste could be encased in a synthetic rock which was especially designed to hold the nuclear material tightly in thus minimising seepage into the groundwater that you mention. Maybe this is the future of the waste industry and Oz could export the technology overseas.

Dear RobP,

Thanks for providing the information.
It is re-assuring that the Government
agencies are looking out for our interests.

Your response encouraged me to google a bit
more on the subject. I came across two websites
that may be of interest to people:

1) http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/online/RadioactiveWaste.htm
"Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel management in Australia."
1 Jan 2006.

2) http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/factsheet/is_waste.cfm
"Radioactive Waste Management."
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

Foxy.
Try
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&contentID=108086

on US base signals as possibly causing qantas flight to dive (2nd time its occured apparantly).

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the US military testing their depleted uranium weapons in central Queensland over the next 20 years.

They had to close their bases in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Japan because of the toxic legacy they were leaving behind (300+ years to clean up) and the increasing nearby cancer rates.

Dear wobbles,

The Australian Government has no choice in
some things if it wants US military protection
in times of crises. However, it should insist
that appropriate non-deteriorating containment
be submitted for approval in the storage of
its military toxic pollutants.

However, as I explained in my earlier post -
Australia geologically has underground sources
of water - which will probably be contaminated
by any underground storage methods of pollutants.
Because no matter how secure we think the storage
methods may at first appear, things with time, do
deteriorate.

Foxy,

The presence of military bases is one thing but the testing of Depleted Uranium weapons results in wind-borne radioactive fallout over a widespread area. We've signed a secret 20 year agreement to provide them with ...what?

If it's not that dangerous, why don't they test them in their own country?

I recommend the documentary "Blowin' in the wind" by David Bradbury for an excellent background.
http://www.bsharp.net.au/htm/the-film.htm

Dear wobbles,

Thank You for the film site reference.

It was a real eye-opener, and made me
angry.

What is our Government thinking?

Geographically the US has the same area of
'wasteland' and desert (if not more) than
Australia. It's time that our Government
recognises this and prohibits the contamination
of our land.

Anything that endangers the lives of our people
should be denied approval.

Issues like these should be raised in our newspapers
prior to an election.

People should be made aware of what's going on.

Actually , this link is very interesting ;
http://www.sprol.com/?p=176

I wonder how it measures up in comparison.

Dear All-,

Thanks so much for that link.

What an eye-opener.

It could be us, if our Government agrees
to the US dumping their toxic waste in this
country.

Where does our future lie? - is the thought
on my mind at the moment.

I had no idea about Chelyabinsk, Russia.
And I thought Chernobyl was bad enough.

Poor people...

I had learnt of it Foxy , some six months ago , when I accidently typed the wrong name from my memory , Chelyabinsk whilst on GNE , it sounded close , my Russian is quite lousy , and my eyes popped out of my head when I read this .
The history in brief is, the Ural region had a drought situation also, and the reservoir that was used as a dump was starved of water, and as the level receded, the nuclear waste containers became exposed and the obvious has occurred.
Chernobyl looks like a wet baby nappy in comparison,
I cannot understand why an incident such as this; absolute catastrophic, not only to the people of the area, and Europe for that matter, then the nth poll, and the atmospheric contamination that carries it far beyond the borders , and yet, nobody knows or wants to know about it.
As sad as it is, Ludwig has probably stated the obvious corollary of events in regards to Governments and departments.
We mere peasants do not count for much other than for Taxation purposes.

We hear of so much environmental propaganda , but not the things that matter. They must be pre paid events .

Dear All-,

It's heartbreaking what we allow governments
to get away with.

I think it was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who said,
"Tyranny exists for as long as we allow it..."

The moral choice is ours to make.