Placeholder Content Image

How would a switch to nuclear affect electricity prices for households and industry?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roger-dargaville-1832">Roger Dargaville</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a></em></p> <p>Peter Dutton has announced that under a Coalition government, seven nuclear power stations would be built around the country over the next 15 years.</p> <p>Experts have declared nuclear power would be <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/power-prices-wont-fall-with-nuclear/103998172">expensive</a> and <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nuclear-to-cost-17b-and-take-until-2040-to-build-csiro-20240521-p5jfaj#:%7E:text=Nuclear%20could%20cost%20up%20to,until%202040%20to%20build%3A%20CSIRO&amp;text=Peter%20Dutton's%20nuclear%20energy%20plans,operational%20until%20at%20least%202040.">slow to build</a>.</p> <p>But what might happen to energy prices if the Coalition were to win government and implement this plan?</p> <h2>How might we estimate the cost of nuclear?</h2> <p>By 2035, 50–60% of the existing coal-fired fleet will very likely <a href="https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2023/draft-2024-isp-consultation/draft-2024-isp.pdf">have been retired</a>, including Vales Point B, Gladstone, Yallourn, Bayswater and Eraring – all of which will have passed 50 years old.</p> <p>These five generators contribute just over 10 gigawatts of capacity. It’s probably not a coincidence that the seven nuclear plants proposed by Dutton would also contribute roughly 10 gigawatts in total if built.</p> <p>Neither my team at Monash University nor the Australian Energy Market Operator has run modelling scenarios to delve into the details of what might happen to electricity prices under a high-uptake nuclear scenario such as the one proposed by the Coalition. That said, we can make some broad assumptions based on a metric known as the “levelised cost of electricity”.</p> <p>This value takes into account:</p> <ul> <li> <p>how much it costs to build a particular technology</p> </li> <li> <p>how long it takes to build</p> </li> <li> <p>the cost to operate the plant</p> </li> <li> <p>its lifetime</p> </li> <li> <p>and very importantly, its capacity factor.</p> </li> </ul> <p>Capacity factor is how much electricity a technology produces in real life, compared with its theoretical maximum output.</p> <p>For example, a nuclear power station would likely run at 90–95% of its full capacity. A solar farm, on the other hand, will run at just 20–25% of its maximum, primarily because it’s night for half of the time, and cloudy some of the time.</p> <p>CSIRO recently published its <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost">GenCost</a> report, which outlines the current and projected build and operational costs for a range of energy technologies.</p> <p>It reports that large-scale nuclear generated electricity would cost between A$155 and $252 per megawatt-hour, falling to between $136 and $226 per megawatt-hour by 2040.</p> <p>The report bases these costs on recent projects in South Korea, but doesn’t consider some other cases where costs have blown out dramatically.</p> <p>The most obvious case is that of <a href="https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/hinkley-point-c-update-1">Hinkley Point C nuclear plant</a> in the United Kingdom. This <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edfs-nuclear-project-britain-pushed-back-2029-may-cost-up-34-bln-2024-01-23/">3.2GW</a> plant, which is being built by French company EDF, was recently <a href="https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/hinkley-point-c-update-1">reported</a> to be now costing around £34 billion (about A$65 billion). That’s about A$20,000 per kilowatt.</p> <p>CSIRO’s GenCost report assumed a value of $8,655 per kilowatt for nuclear, so the true levelised cost of electricity of nuclear power in Australia may end up being twice as expensive as CSIRO has calculated.</p> <hr /> <p><iframe id="Aryx7" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Aryx7/4/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <hr /> <h2>Other factors play a role, too</h2> <p>Another factor not accounted for in the GenCost assumptions is that Australia does not have a nuclear industry. Virtually all the niche expertise would need to be imported.</p> <p>And very large infrastructure projects have a nasty habit of <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/publication/bungles-blowouts-and-boondoggles-why-australias-infrastructure-projects-cost-more-than-they-should/">blowing out in cost</a> – think of Snowy 2.0, Sydney’s light rail project, and the West Gate Tunnel in Victoria.</p> <p>Reasons include higher local wages, regulations and standards plus aversion from lenders to risk that increases cost of capital. These factors would not bode well for nuclear.</p> <p>In CSIRO’s GenCost report, the levelised cost of electricity produced from coal is $100–200 per megawatt-hour, and for gas it’s $120–160 per megawatt-hour. Solar and wind energy work out to be approximately $60 and $90 per megawatt-hour, respectively. But it’s not a fair comparison, as wind and solar are not “dispatchable” but are dependent on the availability of the resource.</p> <p>When you combine the cost of a mix of wind and solar energy and storage, along with the cost of getting the renewable energy into the grid, renewables end up costing $100–120 per megawatt-hour, similar to coal.</p> <p>If we were to have a nuclear-based system (supplemented by gas to meet the higher demands in the mornings and evenings), the costs would likely be much higher – potentially as much as three to four times if cost blowouts similar to Hinkley Point C were to occur (assuming costs were passed on to electricity consumers. Otherwise, taxpayers in general would bear the burden. Either way, it’s more or less the same people).</p> <h2>But what about the impact on your household energy bill?</h2> <p>Well, here the news is marginally better.</p> <p>Typical retail tariffs are 25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is $250–300 per megawatt-hour. The largest component of your energy bill is not the cost of generation of the electricity; rather, it’s the cost of getting the power from the power stations to your home or business.</p> <p>In very approximate terms, this is made up of the market average costs of generation, transmission and distribution, as well as retailer margin and other minor costs.</p> <p>The transmission and distribution costs will not be significantly different under the nuclear scenario compared with the current system. And the additional transmission costs associated with the more distributed nature of renewables (meaning these renewable projects are all over the country) is included in the estimate.</p> <p>According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, your retail tariff under the nuclear scenario could be 40–50c per kilowatt-hour.</p> <p>But if you are a large energy consumer such as an aluminium smelter, you pay considerably less per kilowatt-hour as you don’t incur the same network or retailer costs (but the cost of generating electricity in the first place makes up a much bigger proportion of the total cost).</p> <p>So if the cost of electricity generation soars, this hypothetical aluminium smelter’s energy costs will soar too.</p> <p>This would be a severe cost burden on Australian industry that has traditionally relied on cheap electricity (although it’s been a while since electricity could be described as cheap).</p> <h2>A likely increase in energy costs</h2> <p>In summary, in a free market, it is very unlikely nuclear could be competitive.</p> <p>But if a future Coalition government were to bring nuclear into the mix, energy costs for residential and especially industrial customers would very likely increase.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/232913/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roger-dargaville-1832">Roger Dargaville</a>, Director Monash Energy Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-would-a-switch-to-nuclear-affect-electricity-prices-for-households-and-industry-232913">original article</a>.</em></p> </div>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

Is nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/reuben-finighan-157147">Reuben Finighan</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a></em></p> <p>In Australia’s race to net zero emissions, nuclear power has surged back into the news. Opposition leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/peter-dutton-address-to-ipa-members-sydney-7-july-2023">argues</a> nuclear is “the only feasible and proven technology” for cutting emissions. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists Mr Dutton is promoting “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/energy-minister-says-nuclear-power-too-expensive/102868218">the most expensive form of energy</a>”.</p> <p>Is nuclear a pragmatic and wise choice blocked by ideologues? Or is Mr Bowen right that promoting nuclear power is about as sensible as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/-unicorn-and-a-fantasy-energy-minister-slams-nuclear-energy/102866944">chasing “unicorns”</a>?</p> <p>For someone who has not kept up with developments in nuclear energy, its prospects may seem to hinge on safety. Yet by any hard-nosed accounting, the risks from modern nuclear plants are orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil fuels.</p> <p>Deep failures in design and operational incompetence caused the Chernobyl disaster. Nobody died at Three Mile Island or from Fukushima. Meanwhile, a Harvard-led study found <a href="https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought">more than one in six deaths globally</a> – around 9 million a year – are attributable to polluted air from fossil combustion.</p> <p>Two more mundane factors help to explain why nuclear power has halved as a share of global electricity production since the 1990s. They are time and money.</p> <h2>The might of Wright’s law</h2> <p>There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant">Olkiluoto 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3">Flamanville 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station">Hinkley Point C</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant">Vogtle</a>. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively.</p> <p>Cost overruns at these recent plants average over 300%, with more increases to come. The cost of Vogtle, for example, soared from US$14 billion to $34 billion (A$22-53 billion), Flamanville from €3.3 billion to €19 billion (A$5-31 billion), and <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/nuclear-economics-lessons-from-lazard-to-hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point C</a> from £16 billion to as much as £70 billion (A$30-132 billion), including subsidies. Completion of Vogtle <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vogtles-troubles-bring-us-nuclear-challenge-into-focus-2023-08-24/">has been delayed</a> by seven years, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/">Olkiluoto</a> by 14 years, and <a href="https://www.nucnet.org/news/decree-sets-startup-deadline-of-2024-4-3-2020">Flamanville</a> by at least 12 years.</p> <p>A fifth case is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station">Virgil C</a>, also in the US, for which US$9 billion (A$14 billion) was spent before cost overruns led the project to be abandoned. All three firms building these five plants – Westinghouse, EDF, and AREVA – went bankrupt or were nationalised. Consumers, companies and taxpayers <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/18/hinkley-points-cost-consumers-surges-50bn/">will bear the costs</a> for decades.</p> <p>By contrast, average cost overruns for wind and solar are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/we.2069">around zero</a>, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629614000942">lowest</a> of all energy infrastructure.</p> <p><a href="https://ark-invest.com/wrights-law/">Wright’s law</a> states the more a technology is produced, the more its costs decline. Wind and especially solar power and <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline">lithium-ion batteries</a> have all experienced <a href="https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Aug/Renewables-Competitiveness-Accelerates-Despite-Cost-Inflation">astonishing cost declines</a> over the last two decades.</p> <p>For nuclear power, though, Wright’s law has been inverted. The more capacity installed, the more costs have increased. Why? This <a href="https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30458-X.pdf">2020 MIT study</a> found that safety improvements accounted for around 30% of nuclear cost increases, but the lion’s share was due to persistent flaws in management, design, and supply chains.</p> <p>In Australia, such costs and delays would ensure that we miss our emissions reduction targets. They would also mean spiralling electricity costs, as the grid waited for generation capacity that did not come. For fossil fuel firms and their political friends, this is the real attraction of nuclear – another decade or two of sales at inflated prices.</p> <h2>Comparing the cost of nuclear and renewables</h2> <p>Nevertheless, nuclear advocates tell us we have no choice: wind and solar power are intermittent power sources, and the cost of making them reliable is too high.</p> <p>But let’s compare the cost of reliably delivering a megawatt hour of electricity to the grid from nuclear versus wind and solar. According to both <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP2022-5511&amp;dsid=DS1">the CSIRO</a> and respected energy market analyst <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf">Lazard Ltd</a>, nuclear power has a cost of A$220 to $350 per megawatt hour produced.</p> <p>Without subsidies or state finance, the four plants cited above generally hit or exceed the high end of this range. By contrast, Australia is already building wind and solar plants at under <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/act-starts-to-bank-its-cheapest-wind-power-yet-in-next-stage-to-kick-out-fossil-fuels/">$45</a> and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-gets-stunning-low-price-for-wind-and-solar-in-biggest-renewables-auction/">$35 per megawatt hour</a> respectively. That’s a tenth of the cost of nuclear.</p> <p>The CSIRO has <a href="https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf">modelled the cost</a> of renewable energy that is firmed – meaning made reliable, mainly via batteries and other storage technologies. It found the necessary transmission lines and storage would add only $25 to $34 per megawatt hour.</p> <p>In short, a reliable megawatt hour from renewables costs around a fifth of one from a nuclear plant. We could build a renewables grid large enough to meet demand twice over, and still pay less than half the cost of nuclear.</p> <h2>The future of nuclear: small modular reactors?</h2> <p>Proponents of nuclear power pin their hopes on <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs#:%7E:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,of%20traditional%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs), which replace huge gigawatt-scale units with small units that offer the possibility of being produced at scale. This might allow nuclear to finally harness Wright’s law.</p> <p>Yet commercial SMRs are years from deployment. The US firm <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en">NuScale</a>, scheduled to build two plants in Idaho by 2030, has not yet broken ground, and on-paper costs have already <a href="https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor">ballooned</a> to around A$189 per megawatt hour.</p> <p>And SMRs are decades away from broad deployment. If early examples work well, in the 2030s there will be a round of early SMRs in the US and European countries that have existing nuclear skills and supply chains. If that goes well, we may see a serious rollout from the 2040s onwards.</p> <p>In these same decades, solar, wind, and storage will still be descending the Wright’s law cost curve. Last year the Morrison government was spruiking the goal of getting solar below <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ultra-low-cost-solar-power-a-priority-for-australia-20220108-p59msj.html">$15 per megawatt hour by 2030</a>. SMRs must achieve improbable cost reductions to compete.</p> <p>Finally, SMRs may be necessary and competitive in countries with poor renewable energy resources. But Australia has the richest combined solar and wind resources in the world.</p> <h2>Should we lift the ban?</h2> <p>Given these realities, should Australia lift its ban on nuclear power? A repeal would have no practical effect on what happens in electricity markets, but it might have political effects.</p> <p>A future leader might seek short-term advantage by offering enormous subsidies for nuclear plants. The true costs would arrive years after such a leader had left office. That would be tragic for Australia. With our unmatched solar and wind resources, we have the chance to deliver among the cheapest electricity in the developed world.</p> <p>Mr Dutton may be right that the ban on nuclear is unnecessary. But in terms of getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible, Mr Bowen has the relevant argument. To echo one assessment from the UK, nuclear for Australia would be “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-30/u-k-risks-looking-economically-insane-with-edf-nuclear-deal">economically insane</a>”.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216891/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/reuben-finighan-157147"><em>Reuben Finighan</em></a><em>, PhD candidate at the LSE and Research Fellow at the Superpower Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891">original article</a>.</em></p> </div>

Domestic Travel

Placeholder Content Image

Dutton names future Aussie towns for nuclear power plant locations

<p>Peter Dutton has unveiled a series of locations where he wants to build nuclear power plants if he wins the next federal election. </p> <p>The leader of the opposition has pledged to build at least two nuclear plants between 2035 and 2037 if the Liberal party is elected, with another five on the list to be constructed at a later date. </p> <p>The locations include Gladstone in Queensland, the Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley of NSW, as well as Lithgow in the NSW Central Tablelands, Loy Yang in the La Trobe Valley, Victoria, Callide in Queensland, Muja in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.</p> <p>The proposal would see the nuclear power plants owned by the government under the same set up as entities such as the Snowy Hydro scheme, in a bid to focus on alternative energy solutions and remain committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050.</p> <p>Despite Dutton's enthusiasm about the pitch, treasurer Jim Chalmers slammed the idea as “economically irrational” and “fiscally irresponsible.”</p> <p>“Peter Dutton’s nuclear negativity is economic insanity, pure and simple,’’ he said on ABC radio. </p> <p>“Nuclear takes longer, it costs more, and it will squander Australia’s unique combination of advantages. It is the worst combination of economic and ideological stupidity. </p> <p>“It is economically irrational, it is fiscally irresponsible. And it means if it’s implemented, Australia would fail that grab these vast economic and industrial opportunities with a net zero transformation in the most effective way."</p> <p><em>Image credits: DEAN LEWINS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Editorial/Shutterstock</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

It was written for nuclear disarmament – but today You’re The Voice is the perfect song for the ‘yes’ campaign

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-tregear-825">Peter Tregear</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a></em></p> <p>The serendipity of the pairing between John Farnham’s 1986 hit single You’re the Voice and the Voice to Parliament referendum is obvious, but it goes well beyond the fact the two share the key word “voice”.</p> <p>The original was composed by a team of British songwriters in response to an anti-nuclear demonstration in London’s Hyde Park in 1985. Chris Thompson, Andy Qunta and Maggie Ryder had planned a song-writing session on the day an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/27/world/100000-in-london-protest-arms-race.html">estimated 100,000 marched through central London</a> in support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.</p> <p>Thompson, however, overslept. As an act of self-admonishment he decided to express his remorse by conceiving a song that emphasised the importance of personal agency in achieving political change.</p> <p>This is the kernel of meaning in You’re the Voice. It is also what makes it so especially well suited to support a campaign about a referendum to give Indigenous Australians a constitutionally recognised Voice to Parliament nearly 40 years later.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">OUR NEW AD IS LIVE!</p> <p>You’re the Voice that will make history.</p> <p>On 14 October, we know we all can stand together with the power to be powerful.<br /><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HistoryIsCalling?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HistoryIsCalling</a>, so <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteYes?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteYes</a>. Are you in? John Farnham is.<br /><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UluruStatement?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UluruStatement</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StayTrue2Uluru?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StayTrue2Uluru</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/YoureTheVoice?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#YoureTheVoice</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteYes?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteYes</a> <a href="https://t.co/4ujYd9gk0M">pic.twitter.com/4ujYd9gk0M</a></p> <p>— ulurustatement (@ulurustatement) <a href="https://twitter.com/ulurustatement/status/1698260272165875951?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 3, 2023</a></p></blockquote> <h2>The grain of Farnham’s voice</h2> <p>Thompson was not at all convinced at the time Farnham <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/why-john-farnham-was-nearly-rockblocked-from-youre-the-voice/news-story/9e048f2d4550a8b4c1a28e2eba4909f6">could do the song justice</a> when he requested it for inclusion in his album Whispering Jack.</p> <p>And yet the particular qualities of Farnham’s singing is also arguably crucial to the song’s success, then and now.</p> <p>The music’s combination of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimental_ballad#Power_ballads">power ballad</a> tempo with <a href="https://music.amazon.com.au/playlists/B078H6J6BF">pub anthem</a> singability calls for a kind of full-throated vocal performance that takes more than a little inspiration from African American gospel traditions.</p> <p>Singers drawn from these traditions include giants of popular musical culture like James Brown, Tina Turner and Aretha Franklin. It is not exaggerated praise to suggest Farnham here delivers a performance that stands with their best.</p> <p>And it was career changing for him, helping Farnham to put to rest his earlier image as a clean-cut purveyor of sentimental pop songs like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0c55lXRAeg">Sadie the Cleaning Lady</a> and relaunch his career.</p> <p>Farnham’s singing here exemplifies what Roland Barthes famously described in <a href="https://courses.lsa.umich.edu/jptw/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/08/Barthes-ImageMusicText.pdf">an essay from 1972</a> as the “grain of the voice”: the element of a singer’s individuality which helps convey the sincerity and authenticity of what is being sung.</p> <p>You’re the Voice further highlights the grain of Farnham’s singing via the exclamation “oh, whoa!” regularly punctuating the song’s chorus. In a powerful moment of sonic symbolism, the exclamation is eventually taken up in the advertisement (like the sentiment of the song itself, it is no doubt hoped) by a chorus of supporters.</p> <h2><em>You</em> are the voice</h2> <p>Indeed, if it is to succeed, the referendum will need to convince an especially broad coalition of Australians to vote for “yes”.</p> <p>The song supports this goal from its very title: <em>you</em> are the voice. It asks each of us, individually, to consider how we can act for the common good.</p> <blockquote> <p>We have the chance to turn the pages over <br />We can write what we want to write <br />We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older.</p> </blockquote> <p>The song’s explicit call to action has now been connected to the forthcoming referendum: now is the moment to use your voice at the ballot box to give, in turn, a constitutionally enshrined voice to indigenous Australians.</p> <p>The “yes” campaign’s appeal to collective responsibility is one aspect of the referendum process that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/16/lidia-thorpe-calls-for-referendum-called-off-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-no-campaign">concerns some Indigenous critics</a>. The very enterprise of constitutional reform, after all, presumes the legitimacy of the Australian constitution which in turn presumes the legitimacy of the original act of colonial dispossession.</p> <p>But the bigger threat to the “yes” campaign arguably comes from those who see the idea of an <a href="https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-has-the-potential-to-be-divisive">Indigenous voice to parliament itself as divisive</a>.</p> <p>Yet, as the song goes:</p> <blockquote> <p>This time, we know we all can stand together <br />With the power to be powerful <br />Believing we can make it better.</p> </blockquote> <p>The use of You’re the Voice here reinforces the view that supporting the Voice to Parliament is a positive act of national reconciliation that we, as a nation, can take together.</p> <p>It is an injunction to take personal and collective responsibility for the history and character of the country we all share.</p> <h2>Politically inclusive</h2> <p>The advertisement is the work of Mark Green of <a href="https://themonkeys.com.au/">The Monkeys advertising agency</a> and historian <a href="https://www.clarewright.com.au/">Clare Wright</a>.</p> <p>It focuses on a family as they watch key moments which shaped Australia’s collective identity. It looks at key moments of reconciliation, Indigenous achievement and Indigenous protest; but also broader moments in collective action.</p> <p>In a particularly astute move, the advertisement overlays images of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/01/john-howard-port-arthur-gun-control-1996-cabinet-papers">John Howard’s 1996 gun reforms</a> in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre as Farnham delivers the lines:</p> <blockquote> <p>We’re all someone’s daughter<br />We’re all someone’s son<br />How long can we look at each other<br />Down the barrel of a gun?</p> </blockquote> <p>Implicit in this conjunction is a reminder to us that support for the “yes” vote, like any nation-changing political act, can come from any side of politics.</p> <h2>Democratising the message</h2> <p>There are many more layers we could tease apart in You’re The Voice. Its extended bagpipes solo originated as an homage to AC/DC singer Bon Scott, connecting it to the egalitarian, <a href="https://www.popmatters.com/141796-let-there-be-rock-2496022409.html">working class culture</a> Scott’s music addresses.</p> <p>Then there is the way the bagpipes, combined with the song’s use of side-drum rhythmic patterns, evoke the sound world of a military tattoo or march. This simultaneously elevates the register of its message. The song – and now the ad – is an implicit call to arms.</p> <p>The inclusion of You’re the Voice in the “yes” campaign thus provides powerful support for its central message.</p> <p>Farnham himself recognises this. Upon release of the advertisement, Farnham <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/john-farnham-backs-voice-permits-his-anthem-to-front-yes-campaign-ad-20230901-p5e18t.html">spoke about</a> how, when it was first released in 1986, the song “changed his life”.</p> <p>Generously, he concluded: "I can only hope that now it might help in some small way, to change the lives of our First Nations Peoples for the better."</p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-tregear-825">Peter Tregear</a>, Principal Fellow and Professor of Music, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/it-was-written-for-nuclear-disarmament-but-today-youre-the-voice-is-the-perfect-song-for-the-yes-campaign-212769">original article</a>.</em></p>

Music

Placeholder Content Image

“No longer unthinkable”: UK official weighs in on nuclear threat

<p dir="ltr">A senior officer in the British Air Force has warned that nuclear war could be “only a few steps away” from becoming a reality, as reported by <em><a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17953272/nuclear-war-few-steps-away-ukraine-warns-raf-chief/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Sun</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">British Air Marshal Edward Stringer appeared on the British talkback radio station <a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/nuclear-war-possible-few-steps-away-raf-chief/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBC</a> on Tuesday morning local time and spoke about how the possibility of a nuclear war would be a “weight on the minds” of world leaders.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It’s no longer unthinkable and it clearly be weighing on the minds of those who are making all the political calculations at the moment, hence the very straight and consistent line from Biden and all the other senior heads of state recently,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It is in the realm of possibility, and that is what people have to get their heads around.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Air Marshal Stringer added that it was possible to “sketch a plausible chain of events” that could see the use of nuclear weapons, and that it was “a pretty terrifying prospect for anybody sensible”.</p> <p dir="ltr">He explained that it was also the reason why world leaders have been hesitant to establish no-fly zones over Ukraine.</p> <p dir="ltr">“NATO is not constructed to go onto the offensive, if it did it would be taking on another nuclear power - Russia,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">As for whether nuclear war is likely, US intelligence says Russia has a theory called “escalate to de-escalate” to use if in conflict with NATO where a dramatic action of threat is used to frighten opponents and cause them to back down, according to the <em><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BBC</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">James Acton, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the outlet it may be a tactic to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin gets his way. </p> <p dir="ltr">“I am legitimately worried that in that circumstance Putin might use a nuclear weapon, most likely on the ground in Ukraine to terrify everyone and get his way,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“We are not at that point yet.”</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-25d0971b-7fff-2233-c394-2220ae2115ba"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Queen's "World War III" speech strikes a haunting note

<p dir="ltr">Though it’s almost 40 years old, Queen Elizabeth II’s pre-prepared speech in the event of World War III is feeling quite pertinent lately.</p> <p dir="ltr">The sombre message, first penned in 1983 at the height of the Cold War and publicly released in 2013, is a script for a hypothetical broadcast the monarch would read if British citizens faced a threat of nuclear war or World War III.</p> <p dir="ltr">Devised by Whitehall officials, the speech was created as part of a war-gaming exercise that worked through potential scenarios and was written as if broadcast on Friday, March 4 at midday - almost 39 years ago to the day.</p> <p dir="ltr">“The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth,” the script begins, as shared by the <em><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23518587" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BBC</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Now, this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The Queen also recalls the moment World War II broke out and her own experience of sadness and pride upon hearing her father make the announcement.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father’s [George VI’s] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939,” it reads.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.</p> <p dir="ltr">“But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Unsurprisingly, the address <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/queen-elizabeth-secret-speech-in-case-of-world-war-iii/eb18bc06-e53c-4fa8-baab-549476b59370" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contains</a> some outdated aspects, including a mention of her “beloved” son Andrew - who was in the Royal Navy at the time - and references to her now-late husband Prince Philip.</p> <p dir="ltr">She also spoke of the power of the bond families share and how it “must be our greatest defence against the unknown”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country’s will to survive cannot be broken.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The war-gaming exercise it was devised for has become increasingly relevant as well, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues amid the threat of nuclear strikes from Moscow and ongoing peace talks between the two countries.</p> <p dir="ltr">In it, Orange bloc forces representing the Soviet Union and its allies launched a chemical weapon attack on the UK.</p> <p dir="ltr">NATO, represented by Blue forces, retaliates with a “limited-yield” nuclear strike that forces Orange to initiate a peace process.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-74b0ef2d-7fff-7430-7c16-31b0387424ac"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

West responds to Putin placing nuclear arsenal on high alert

<p>As tensions and fighting continue to escalate between Russia and Ukraine, the US and NATO have slammed Putin's decision to put Russia's nuclear forces on high alert.</p> <p>Speaking at a meeting with his top officials, Putin directed the Russian defence minister and the chief of the military's General Staff to put the nuclear deterrent forces in a "special regime of combat duty."</p> <p>The Russian president also discussed the hard-hitting sanctions that have been placed on Russia, and Putin himself.</p> <p>"Western countries aren't only taking unfriendly actions against our country in the economic sphere, but top officials from leading NATO members made aggressive statements regarding our country," Putin said in televised comment.</p> <p>White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the dangerous move was part of a wider pattern of unprovoked escalation and "manufactured threats" from the Kremlin.</p> <p>"This is really a pattern that we've seen from President Putin through the course of this conflict, which is manufacturing threats that don't exist in order to justify further aggression — and the global community and the American people should look at it through that prism," Psaki told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on '<em>This Week</em>'.</p> <p>She added, "This is all a pattern from President Putin and we're going to stand up for it, we have the ability to defend ourselves, but we also need to call out what we're seeing here from President Putin."</p> <p>In reaction to the nuclear alert, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN, "This is dangerous rhetoric. This is a behaviour which is irresponsible."</p> <p>Given that Russia, as well as the US, typically have both land and submarine-based nuclear forces on alert for combat at all times, the practicality of Putin's order is not yet clear. </p> <p>As the conflict only continues to grow with Moscow troops drawing closer to Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed that a delegation would meet in an undisclosed location on the Belarusian border to discuss peace talks. </p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

What is radioactivity?

<div> <div class="copy"> <p>We owe the discovery of radioactivity to bad weather. French physicist <a rel="noopener" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Becquerel" target="_blank">Henri Becquerel</a> was trying to study fluorescence, a phenomenon where certain materials glow when exposed to sunlight, but overcast days thwarted his experiments and so he wrapped his fluorescing uranium salts in cloth and left them in a drawer, along with a photographic plate and a copper cross. This simple serendipitous accident, in 1896, revealed the existence of radioactivity, a phenomenon that opened a window into the subatomic world and kickstarted the nuclear revolution.</p> <h2>Understanding radioactivity</h2> <p>When he finally fetched the salts, Becquerel found that an image of the cross had appeared on the photographic plate – even though the salts had not been exposed to light.</p> <p>“I am now convinced that uranium salts produce invisible radiation, even when they have been kept in the dark,” he wrote after conducting further experiments.</p> <p>Becquerel’s doctoral student, <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/this-week-in-science-history-marie-curie-dies/">Marie Curie</a>, investigated the matter with her husband Pierre and they realised the effect had nothing to do with fluorescence, instead discovering that certain materials naturally emit a constant flow of energy. They coined the term ‘radioactivity’ and also found two new radioactive elements: polonium and radium. For this profound and exciting work, Becquerel and the Curies received the Nobel Prize for <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/">Physics</a> in 1903.</p> <p>Physicists Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy delved deeper and found that tiny amounts of matter contain huge reserves of energy. They also realised that in the process of radioactive decay, one element can turn into another – an atom of uranium can transform (via a few intermediate steps) into an atom of lead.</p> <p>Around the world people assumed that these miraculously energetic materials could be put to good use. Until the 1920s, many manufacturers of laxatives and toothpaste proudly laced their products with radioactive thorium, and radioactive substances were only banned in consumer products in the US in 1938.</p> <h2>How does radioactivity work?</h2> <p>Today we have a much more comprehensive understanding of what radioactivity is, how it can be dangerous, and how we can use it.</p> <p>Here’s a basic rundown: imagine an atom, composed of a cloud of electrons around a central nucleus where particles called neutrons and protons are crammed in together. Some arrangements of protons and neutrons are more stable than others; if there are too many neutrons compared to protons, the nucleus becomes unstable and falls apart. This decay releases nuclear radiation in the form of alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma radiation.</p> <p>An alpha particle carries off two protons and two neutrons, and since an element is defined by its number of protons, the parent atom becomes a whole new element when an alpha particle is emitted. In beta decay, a neutron transforms into one proton and one electron, and the electron speeds off, leaving an extra proton behind and once again resulting in an atom of a different element. Alongside either of the above particles, decaying nuclei can also produce gamma rays: high energy electromagnetic radiation.</p> <h2>What are the health effects?</h2> <p>As Becquerel and the Curies discovered, radioactivity is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. Many minerals in the Earth emit a slow and steady trickle of radiation, the air we breathe contains radioactive gases, and even foods and our bodies contain a small percentage of radioactive atoms like potassium-40 and carbon-14. The Earth also receives radiation from the Sun and as high-energy cosmic rays. These sources create a natural but unavoidable level of background radiation. Many artificial sources add to this, including medical procedures such as X-rays, smoke detectors, building materials and combustible fuels.</p> <p>We generally aren’t harmed by low-level background sources of radiation, as the extent of harm depends on the length and level of exposure. Radiation can damage the body’s internal chemistry, breaking up chemical bonds in our tissue, killing cells, and damaging DNA, which may lead to cancer. In very high doses, radiation can cause sickness and death within hours.</p> <h2>Harnessing nuclear power</h2> <p>The effects of radioactivity have been felt on an even grander scale with the meltdown of nuclear power plants throughout history. The radioactive process of fission has been harnessed for several decades to produce electricity: the nucleus of an atom is split, creating at least two “daughter” nuclei and releasing energy as heat. The heat is used to boil water and create steam, turning a turbine and generating electricity.</p> <p>Unfortunately this isn’t a clean process – it produces radioactive waste that is difficult to safely dispose of, and in extreme cases reactions can spiral out of control, such as the disaster triggered by an earthquake at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in 2011.</p> <p>Another radioactive process could provide a safe way to generate clean energy: fusion. In contrast to fission, fusion involves joining two atomic nuclei together. This process also releases energy – it’s the exact process occurring in the Sun and other stars – but fusion requires extremely high temperatures and pressures, which are expensive and difficult to recreate on Earth.</p> <h2>A long road ahead</h2> <p>Becquerel died 12 years after his initial discovery at age 54, with burns and scars likely from handling radioactive materials, and Marie Curie died several decades later from leukemia. Radiation was probably slowly killing Pierre Curie too, although it’s difficult to know as he was fatally run down by a carriage in 1906.</p> <p>Today our greater understanding of radioactivity allows us to use it much more safely. Accidents with radioactive materials have decreased in frequency and produce fewer fatalities due to stringent safety measures and thorough emergency responses. In the most recent nuclear disaster at Fukushima, no deaths resulted from radiation exposure – but there’s still a long way to go before we can safely harness the immense raw power of radioactivity.</p> <em>Image credits: Shutterstock        <!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --> <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=76198&amp;title=What+is+radioactivity%3F" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> <!-- End of tracking content syndication -->          </em></div> <div id="contributors"> <p><em>This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-radioactivity/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Lauren Fuge. </em></p> </div> </div>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

“That fellow Down Under”: Biden’s blunder in historic announcement

<p>United States President Joe Biden has seemingly forgotten Scott Morrison's name in an historic press conference. </p> <p>The joint announcement with the UK, US and Australia saw the three politicians come together for a virtual press conference to discuss their new <span>trilateral security partnership.</span></p> <p><span>Amid the President's </span>speech, Biden thanked "that fellow down under" for bringing the three countries together. </p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">🇦🇺 'I want to thank that fella down under.'<br /><br />🇺🇸 President Biden appears to forget the name of Australian PM Scott Morrison 😬 <a href="https://t.co/2aCUbUBjdz">pic.twitter.com/2aCUbUBjdz</a></p> — GB News (@GBNEWS) <a href="https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1438250398033326087?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2021</a></blockquote> <p>"Thank you Boris, and I want to thank that fellow down under,” he said.</p> <p>“Thank you very much, pal! Appreciate it, Mr Prime Minister."</p> <p>Biden quick backtracked and address Scott Morrison by name as he thanked him for the partnership, but the blunder was not missed by those on Twitter. </p> <p>Social media users criticised Biden's fumble and said the announcement would have been "more significant" <span>if Mr Biden hadn’t forgotten Mr Morrison’s name.</span></p> <p><span>One person tweeted, "Surely 'that fella Down Under' is the </span>equivalent of running into someone in a pub whose name you can't remember and can only come up with 'Maaaaate'."</p> <p>Another wrote, "Well. AUKUS is off to a good start..."</p> <p>The announcement shadowed a statement of Scott Morrison's on Thursday, as he confirmed that Australia would be utilising British and American technology to build its next fleet, <span>replacing the existing Collins class submarines.</span></p> <p>The Prime Minister made it clear that Australia was not planning to create any nuclear weapons or a civil nuclear capability, and will abide by all non-proliferation obligations.</p> <p>The news comes with the official forming of a security partnership between the three powerful country, called AUKUS, with a focus on new technologies. </p> <p><em>Image credit: Getty Images</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

315 nuclear bombs and ongoing suffering: The shameful history of nuclear testing in Australia and the Pacific

<p><em>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware this article contains the name of a deceased person.</em></p> <p>The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons received its <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1076082">50th ratification on October 24</a>, and will therefore come into force in January 2021. A historic development, this new international law will ban the possession, development, testing, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.</p> <p>Unfortunately the nuclear powers — the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea — haven’t signed on to the treaty. As such, they are not immediately obliged to <a href="http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Victim-assistance-short-4-8-18-final.pdf">help victims and remediate contaminated environments</a>, but others party to the treaty do have these obligations. The shifting norms around this will hopefully put ongoing pressure on nuclear testing countries to open records and to cooperate with accountability measures.</p> <p>For the people of the Pacific region, particularly those who bore the brunt of nuclear weapons testing during the 20th century, it will bring a new opportunity for their voices to be heard on the long-term costs of nuclear violence. The treaty is the first to enshrine enduring commitments to addressing their needs.</p> <p>From 1946, around <a href="https://icanw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Pacific-Report-2017.pdf">315 nuclear tests</a> were carried out in the Pacific by the US, Britain and France. These nations’ largest ever nuclear tests took place on colonised lands and oceans, from Australia to the Marshall Islands, Kiribati to French Polynesia.</p> <p>The impacts of these tests are still being felt today.</p> <p><strong>All nuclear tests cause harm</strong></p> <p>Studies of nuclear test workers and exposed nearby communities <a href="https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/">around the world</a> <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-the-red-cross/article/humanitarian-impact-and-implications-of-nuclear-test-explosions-in-the-pacific-region/1FDB0D26842BEA5621F33A0B53FCD7F9">consistently show</a> adverse health effects, especially increased risks of <a href="https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/">cancer</a>.</p> <p>The total number of global cancer deaths as a result of atmospheric nuclear test explosions has been estimated at between <a href="https://scope.dge.carnegiescience.edu/SCOPE_59/SCOPE_59.html">2 million</a> and <a href="https://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/1991/06/RadioactiveHeavenEarth1991.pdf">2.4 million</a>, even though these studies used radiation risk estimates that are now dated and likely underestimated the <a href="http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n3873/pdf/ch08.pdf">risk</a>.</p> <p>The number of additional non-fatal cancer cases caused by test explosions is similar. As confirmed in a <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1667/RR14608.1">large recent study</a> of nuclear industry workers in France, the UK and US, the numbers of radiation-related deaths due to other diseases, such as heart attacks and strokes, is also likely to be similar.</p> <p><strong>‘We all got crook’</strong></p> <p>Britain conducted 12 nuclear test explosions in Australia between 1952 and 1957, and hundreds of minor trials of radioactive and toxic materials for bomb development up to 1963. These caused untold health problems for local Aboriginal people who were at the highest risk of radiation. Many of them were not properly evacuated, and some were not informed at all.</p> <p>We may never know the full impact of these explosions because in many cases, as the Royal Commission report on British Nuclear Tests in Australia <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22publications/tabledpapers/HPP032016010928%22;src1=sm1">found in 1985</a>: “the resources allocated for Aboriginal welfare and safety were ludicrous, amounting to nothing more than a token gesture”. But we can listen to the survivors.</p> <p>The late Yami Lester directly experienced the impacts of nuclear weapons. A Yankunytjatjara elder from South Australia, Yami was a child when the British tested at Emu Field in October 1953. He <a href="https://icanw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/BlackMist-FINAL-Web.pdf">recalled</a> the “Black Mist” after the bomb blast:</p> <p><em>It wasn’t long after that a black smoke came through. A strange black smoke, it was shiny and oily. A few hours later we all got crook, every one of us. We were all vomiting; we had diarrhoea, skin rashes and sore eyes. I had really sore eyes. They were so sore I couldn’t open them for two or three weeks. Some of the older people, they died. They were too weak to survive all the sickness. The closest clinic was 400 miles away.</em></p> <p>His daughter, Karina Lester, is an ambassador for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in Australia, and continues to be driven by her family’s experience. She <a href="https://icanw.org.au/choosinghumanity/">writes</a>:</p> <p><em>For decades now my family have campaigned and spoken up against the harms of nuclear weapons because of their firsthand experience of the British nuclear tests […] Many Aboriginal people suffered from the British nuclear tests that took place in the 1950s and 1960s and many are still suffering from the impacts today.</em></p> <p>More than 16,000 Australian workers were also exposed. A key <a href="https://www.dva.gov.au/documents-and-publications/british-nuclear-testing-australia-studies">government-funded study</a> belatedly followed these veterans over an 18-year period from 1982. Despite the difficulties of conducting a study decades later with incomplete data, it <a href="https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.pace.edu/dist/0/195/files/2018/10/Australia-PosObs-Country-Report-7-1zbngsb.pdf">found</a> they had 23% higher rates of cancer and 18% more deaths from cancers than the general population.</p> <p>An additional health impact in Pacific island countries is the toxic disease “ciguatera”, caused by certain microscopic plankton at the base of the marine food chain, which thrive on damaged coral. Their toxins concentrate up the food chain, especially in fish, and cause illness and occasional deaths in people who eat them. In the Marshall Islands, Kiritimati and French Polynesia, outbreaks of the disease among locals have been associated with coral damage caused by <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(89)91212-9/fulltext">nuclear test explosions</a> and the extensive military and shipping infrastructure supporting them.</p> <p>Pacific survivors of nuclear testing haven’t been focused solely on addressing their own considerable needs for justice and care; they’ve been powerful advocates that no one should suffer as they have ever again, and have worked tirelessly for the eradication of nuclear weapons. It’s no surprise independent Pacific island nations are strong supporters of the new treaty, accounting for ten of the first 50 ratifications.</p> <p><strong>Negligence and little accountability</strong></p> <p>Some nations that have undertaken nuclear tests have provided some care and compensation for their nuclear test workers; only the US has made some <a href="https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca">provisions</a> for people exposed, though only for mainland US residents downwind of the Nevada Test Site. No testing nation has extended any such arrangement beyond its own shores to the colonised and minority peoples it put in harm’s way. Nor has any testing nation made fully publicly available its records of the history, conduct and effects of its nuclear tests on exposed populations and the environment.</p> <p>These nations have also been negligent by quickly abandoning former test sites. There has been inadequate clean-up and little or none of the long-term environmental monitoring needed to detect radioactive leakage from underground test sites into groundwater, soil and air. One example among many is the Runit concrete dome in the Marshall Islands, which holds nuclear waste from US testing in the 1940s and 50s. It’s increasingly <a href="https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/">inundated by rising sea levels</a>, and is leaking radioactive material.</p> <p>The treaty provides a light in a dark time. It contains the only internationally agreed framework for all nations to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons.</p> <p>It’s our fervent hope the treaty will mark the increasingly urgent beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. It is our determined expectation that our country will step up. Australia has not yet ratified the treaty, but the bitter legacy of nuclear testing across our country and region should spur us to join this new global effort.</p> <p><em>Written <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tilman-ruff-89">Tilman Ruff</a>, University of Melbourne and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dimity-hawkins-292972">Dimity Hawkins</a>, Swinburne University of Technology. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/315-nuclear-bombs-and-ongoing-suffering-the-shameful-history-of-nuclear-testing-in-australia-and-the-pacific-148909">The Conversation.</a></em></p>

Cruising

Placeholder Content Image

“I still cannot get over it”: Nuclear weapons ban comes after 75 years since Japan atomic bombs

<p>The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will finally come into force after the 50th country (Honduras) <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-to-enter-into-force-united-nations-says-20201025-p568du.html">ratified it</a> over the weekend. The treaty will make the development, testing, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons illegal for those countries that have signed it.</p> <p>This is an extraordinary achievement for those who have suffered the most from these weapons — including the <em>hibakusha</em> (survivors) of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the islanders who lived through nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.</p> <p>Since 1956, the <em>hibakusha</em> in Japan, South Korea, Brazil and elsewhere have been some of the most strident campaigners against the use of these weapons. Among them is a group of Japanese Catholics from Nagasaki whom I interviewed as part of my <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Memory-Nagasaki-Narratives-Transformations/dp/0367217759">research</a> collecting the oral histories of atomic bomb survivors.</p> <p>A 92-year-old <em>hibakusha</em> of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 and a brother in a Catholic order, Ozaki Tōmei, explained the significance of the treaty to survivors like him. He was orphaned from the bombing at 17 and never found his mother’s body.</p> <p>“The Germans made tools for war including poisonous gas, which was [eventually] banned […] However, when the USA made an atomic weapon, then they … wanted to try it out. It was a war […] they were human.</p> <p>“And so this is why we say we have to eliminate nuclear weapons […] They said they did it to end the war, but for the people who were struck, it was horrific […] there was no need to use it.”</p> <p><strong>Treaty does not have support of nuclear powers</strong></p> <p>The treaty was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/07/treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-approved-un">adopted</a> at the United Nations in 2017 by a vote of 122 nations in favour, one against and one abstention.</p> <p>Sixty-nine nations, however, have not signed it, including all of the nuclear powers such as the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan and North Korea, as well as NATO member states (apart from the Netherlands who voted against), Japan and Australia.</p> <p>Since the treaty was adopted, it needed ratification by 50 countries to come into force. This will now happen in 90 days.</p> <p>The campaign for the treaty has relied heavily on civil society and organisations such as the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).</p> <p>And from the beginning, it has exposed political fault lines. The United States has been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-urges-countries-to-withdraw-from-un-nuke-ban-treaty/2020/10/21/21918918-13ce-11eb-a258-614acf2b906d_story.html">particularly outspoken</a> in its opposition to the treaty, warning last week the treaty “turns back the clock on verification and disarmament and is dangerous” to the 50-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/">NPT</a> sought to prevent the spread of nuclear arms beyond the five original weapons powers (the US, Russia, China, UK and France). It has been signed by 190 countries, including those five nations.</p> <p>The head of ICAN, Beatrice Fihn, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-urges-countries-to-withdraw-from-un-nuke-ban-treaty/2020/10/21/21918918-13ce-11eb-a258-614acf2b906d_story.html">says</a> the new treaty banning nuclear weapons merely builds on the nonproliferation treaty.</p> <p>“There’s no way you can undermine the nonproliferation treaty by banning nuclear weapons. It’s the end goal of the nonproliferation treaty.”</p> <p>States like Japan and Australia have opposed the treaty on the grounds their security is boosted by the US stockpile of nuclear weapons. Japan’s former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/japan-holds-firm-against-nuclear-ban-treaty-on-anniversary-of-nuclear-bombings/">has said</a> the treaty “was created without taking into account the realities of security.”</p> <p><strong>The efforts of <em>hibakusha</em> in advocating for a treaty</strong></p> <p>Making the bomb illegal turns an old US justification for the weapon on its head. Harry Stimson, the former US war secretary, <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/stimson-bomb">argued</a> in 1947 the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to compel the Japanese to surrender at the end of the second world war.</p> <p>“The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon.”</p> <p>The damage from the bombings was colossal. It is unknown how many people were killed, but <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/">estimates</a> range from 110,000 (the US army’s toll) to <a href="https://www.icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_7_things_you_should_know">210,000</a> (the figure accepted by ICAN and others).</p> <p>At the forefront of the campaign to support the nuclear weapons ban treaty have been the voices of <em>hibakusha</em> who experienced the carnage firsthand.</p> <p>Another Catholic <em>hibakusha</em>, Nakamura Kazutoshi, told me the stockpiling of nuclear weapons enables states to carry out genocide.</p> <p>“In war, we are at a level below animals. Among monkeys, or chimpanzees, there are no animals who would carry out a genocide.”</p> <p>A third <em>hibakusha</em>, 90-year-old Jōji Fukahori, told me about how he lost his mother and three younger siblings in the Nagasaki bombing.</p> <p>His younger brother, Kōji, died an excruciating death around a week after the bombing, walking in the hot ash with no shoes and complaining to his brother, “I’m so hot!”</p> <p>At the site where Fukahori’s brother was exposed, the temperature was about 1,000 degrees Celsius. Fukahori said, “You would have thought everyone would have turned into charcoal.”</p> <p>For Fukahori, the lasting effects of radiation exposure is a major reason why nuclear weapons must be banned. He continued: “the terror of radiation has to be fully communicated … The atomic bomb is unacceptable. I still cannot get over it.”</p> <p>Since 2009, Fukahori has been speaking out at the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum and on the <a href="https://peaceboat.org/english/project/hibakusha#:%7E:text=Peace%20Boat%20has%20long%20worked,%3A%20Peace%20Boat%20Hibakusha%20Project%E2%80%9D.">Peace Boat</a>, a non-governmental organisation that organises cruises where passengers learn about the consequences of using nuclear weapons from <em>hibakusha</em>.</p> <p><strong>Pressure building on Japan</strong></p> <p>The Japanese government is now under <a href="http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13522651">mounting pressure</a> to ratify the treaty. Major Japanese financial institutions and companies have said they will no longer fund the production of nuclear weapons and nearly a third of all local assemblies have adopted proposals calling on the government to act.</p> <p>The government, however, has been unmoved. In August, Abe <a href="https://twitter.com/AbeShinzo/status/1292325885849137157?s=20">gave a speech</a> at a memorial service in Nagasaki, in which he suggested the effects of the bombings had been overcome.</p> <p>“Seventy-five years ago today, Nagasaki was reduced to ashes, with not a single tree or blade of grass remaining. Yet through the efforts of its citizens, it achieved reconstruction beautifully as we see today. Mindful of this, we again feel strongly that there is no trial that cannot be overcome and feel acutely how precious peace is.”</p> <p>A Japanese atomic researcher, who knows how Fukahori and other <em>hibakusha</em> have not been able to move on, told me Abe’s words don’t go far enough:</p> <p>“Rather than placing a ‘full-stop’ at the end of damages such as this, we have a necessity to make our claim that the damages are not finished.”</p> <p>The nuclear weapons ban treaty offers a moment of hope for all the <em>hibakusha</em> of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still with us after 75 years. It is certainly their hope the ratification of the treaty now moves us one step closer to a world free of nuclear war.</p> <p><em>Written by <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gwyn-mcclelland-305943">Gwyn McClelland</a>, University of New England. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-still-cannot-get-over-it-75-years-after-japan-atomic-bombs-a-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-is-finally-realised-147851">The Conversation.</a> </em></p> <p> </p>

Beauty & Style

Placeholder Content Image

Workers exposed to unsafe radiation at Sydney nuclear facility

<p>Production has been halted at a newly opened nuclear facility in Sydney’s Lucas Heights after two workers were exposed to an unsafe amount of radiation.</p> <p>The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has confirmed production was stopped at its $168 million nuclear medicine facility after three of its staff were “attended to by radiation protection personnel” following a contamination on a container carrying Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) on Friday morning.</p> <p>Initial assessments found that two of those workers were exposed to “a radiation dose above the statutory limit”.</p> <p>“Early calculations indicate that the radiation dose received by two of the workers involved in medicine processing was equivalent to that of a conventional radiation therapy treatment,” an <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-24/lucas-heights-nuclear-facility-workers-exposed-to-radiation/11242278" target="_blank">ANSTO spokesperson said</a>.</p> <p>“An occupational physician will continue to provide ongoing observation. All three workers involved are receiving ongoing support from ANSTO.”</p> <p>The spokesperson said an investigation is underway, and the manufacturing of their Mo-99 would take place at other facilities in the meantime.</p> <p>The incident came less than two weeks after ANSTO was granted a licence to enter into full production of Mo-99, which is the parent isotope of Technetium-99m used in hospitals and nuclear medicine centres to diagnose a range of heart, lung, organ and muscular-skeletal conditions.</p> <p>It is the <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/24/two-workers-exposed-to-unsafe-radiation-dose-at-lucas-heights-nuclear-facility" target="_blank">second contamination scare</a> at the Lucas Heights facility in recent months. In March, three employees were taken to the hospital after being exposed to a sodium hydroxide spill.  </p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

"Beyond anything you can imagine": The brutal truth of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster

<p>The launch of HBO miniseries <em>Chernobyl</em> has once again brought attention to the world’s worst nuclear disaster. Discussions have emerged as to whether the five-part show provided a realistic depiction of the catastrophe.</p> <p>While some details in the story have been contested, most experts and survivors agree that the portrayal of the radiation effects is true to life.</p> <p>Oleksiy Breus was an engineer at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the then-Soviet Union. Following the 1986 explosion at the fourth reactor, he took part in a dangerous operation to drain water from under the power station to prevent further explosion.</p> <p>The 59-year-old told <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48580177" target="_blank"><em>BBC</em></a> that the physical impacts of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) were shown well in the series through the character of firefighter Vasily Ignatenko.</p> <p>Breus said he met with shift leader Oleksandr Akimov and operator Leonid Toptunov – both of whom were featured prominently on the show – hours after the incident.</p> <p>“They were not looking good, to put it mildly,” he said. “It was clear they felt sick. They were very pale. Toptunov had literally turned white.”</p> <p>Akimov and Toptunov died two weeks later from ARS. Breus said his other colleagues who worked at the ill-fated night died in hospital after their skin turned to “a bright red colour”.</p> <p>He said, “Radiation exposure, red skin, radiation burns and steam burns were what many people talked about but it was never shown like this. When I finished my shift, my skin was brown, as if I had a proper suntan all over my body. My body parts not covered by clothes – such as hands, face and neck – were red.”</p> <p>This was in line with the testimony from Lyudmilla Ignatenko, wife of the fallen firefighter. In the book <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/apr/25/energy.ukraine" target="_blank">Voices from Chernobyl</a> by Russian journalist Svetlana Alexievich, Lyudmilla said she witnessed her husband’s condition exacerbate as he began experiencing serious diarrhea, hair loss and skin cracking and discolouring.</p> <p>She recalled, “I tell the nurse: ‘He’s dying’. And she says to me: ‘What did you expect? He got 1,600 roentgen. Four hundred is a lethal dose. You're sitting next to a nuclear reactor’.”</p> <p>Archaeologist and Chernobyl expert Robert Maxwell also vouched for the show’s accuracy in showing how nuclear radiation affects the human body.</p> <p>“The skin of the tongue sloughs off; the skin of the body turns black and peels way upon touch... eyes blister. The colon is covered in third degree burns,” Maxwell told <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.mamamia.com.au/chernobyl-radiation-poisoning/?utm_source=Mamamia.com.au%20-%20All%20Newsletters&amp;utm_campaign=e78d678868-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_17_06_53&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_9dc62997a2-e78d678868-211561537&amp;mc_cid=e78d678868&amp;mc_eid=c10f87c072" target="_blank"><em>Mamamia</em></a>. “Their depiction of ARS and its treatment during the Soviet 1980s is highly accurate.”</p> <p>The show’s creator Craig Mazin said he and his team took great care to show “total respect” to Vasily and his family in the series.</p> <p>“We had to be really careful in episode three when we showed the final stage of Vasily Ignatenko's body,” Mazin told <em><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/chernobyl-finale-explained-creator-craig-mazin-interview-1215670" target="_blank">The Hollywood Reporter</a></em>. “It was the most extreme thing that we showed, and our makeup and prosthetic designer Daniel Parker did a brilliant job — so brilliant, in fact, that there was a concern that we lingered on it a bit.</p> <p>“We shortened that shot by quite a bit, because the last thing we wanted was to feel like we were trading on this man's sad fate for sensationalist points on a TV show. What we wanted was for people to see the truth of what happens…</p> <p>“Those were the things we were dealing with all the time, because that man was a real person, and his wife is still alive, and the last thing we want to do is show anything other than total respect.”</p> <p>134 people were <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18049222" target="_blank">diagnosed with ARS</a> in the aftermath of the explosion. 28 of them died within months.</p> <p>The number of people affected by the disaster remains disputed, with many suspecting that the radiation may be the reason behind other health problems such as cancer and birth defects.</p>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

Polluted nuclear site to become tourist destinations

<p>America's most polluted nuclear weapons production site is now its newest national park.</p> <p>Thousands of people are expected next year to tour the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, home of the world's first full-sized nuclear reactor, near Richland, about 200 miles east of Seattle in south-central Washington.</p> <p>They won't be allowed anywhere near the nation's largest collection of toxic radioactive waste.</p> <p>"Everything is clean and perfectly safe," said Colleen French, the US Department of Energy's program manager for the Hanford park. "Any radioactive materials are miles away."</p> <p>The Manhattan Project National Historic Park, signed into existence in November, also includes sites at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Manhattan Project is the name for the US effort to build an atomic bomb during World War II.</p> <p>At Hanford, the main attractions will be B Reactor - the world's first full-sized reactor - along with the ghost towns of Hanford and White Bluffs, which were evacuated by the government to make room for the Manhattan Project.</p> <p>The B Reactor was built in about one year and produced plutonium for the Trinity test blast in New Mexico and for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, that led to the surrender of the Japanese.</p> <p>Starting in 1943, more than 50,000 people from across the United States arrived at the top-secret Hanford site to perform work whose purpose few knew, French said.</p> <p>The 300 residents of Richland were evicted and that town became a bedroom community for the adjacent Hanford site, skyrocketing in population. Workers laboured around the clock to build reactors and processing plants to make plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.</p> <p>The park will tell the story of those workers, plus the scientists who performed groundbreaking research and the residents who were displaced, said Chip Jenkins of the National Park Service, which is jointly developing the park with the Energy Department.</p> <p>"The intention of the park is to tell the full and complex and convoluted story," Jenkins said. That story is still being developed, but will certainly include a Japanese perspective, he said.</p> <p>"What happened at B Reactor changed the course of human history," Jenkins said. "They went from sparsely populated ranching communities to the first packet of plutonium over the course of 18 months."</p> <p>Eventually, nine reactors were built at Hanford and operated during the Cold War to make plutonium for the US. nuclear arsenal. That work created more than 56 million gallons of radioactive waste that the government still spends more than $1 billion a year to maintain and clean up.</p> <p>While details of the new national park are still being worked out, French said, the Energy Department will continue its tours of the B Reactor and the old town sites that began in 2009 and fill up with some 10,000 visitors a year.</p> <p>The plan is to greatly expand the number of tourists and school groups who visit the site, she said.</p> <p>Tours will occur from April to October, French said. Exhibits at the B Reactor include the exposed face of the reactor and the control room, where many visitors like to sit and be photographed at control panels, she said.</p> <p>The Hanford story is far from over. Jenkins noted that thousands of scientists and other workers remain active on the Hanford site, inventing and implementing new techniques to clean up the massive volume of nuclear waste.</p> <p>Written by Nicholas K. Geranios. First appeared on <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank"><strong>Stuff.co.nz.</strong></a></span></p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/travel/international/2015/12/largest-flower-garden-in-the-world/"><strong><em>14 images from the world’s largest flower garden</em></strong></a></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/travel/international/2016/01/how-i-drove-a-motorhome-around-the-world/"><strong><em>When I retired I drove a motorhome around the world</em></strong></a></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em><a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/travel/international/2015/12/shibuya-pedestrian-crossing-japan/">The busiest pedestrian crossing in the world</a></em></strong></span></p>

International Travel

Our Partners