Terra Nuclear?

A promotional video by Pangea company (a Seattle-based company which is 
made up of British, Swiss and American interests) was shown in Australia on 
December 1. It had been leaked to environmental groups and showed the map 
of Australia with a bright green area in South and Western Australia.

The area, according to Pangea, is perfectly suited for overseas nuclear 
waste disposal.

The Australian Government has denied any knowledge of the proposal claiming 
there had been no "ministerial-level discussions" with the company.

But, according to The Australian (2/12/98) "White House officials 
are understood to have been briefed on the plan, as have senior Australian 
bureaucrats." 

This hair-raising scenario is absolutely mind-boggling.

First of all, is the temerity of the proposal. Secondly, the proposition 
that Australia is the perfect choice because it has vast areas of "empty 
land" is a sinister reminder of the argument 210 years ago when the 
continent was declared by the British to be terra nullius — that 
the land was empty and belonged to no-one.

Though the Government issued a guarantee that it would not accept medium-
to-high level nuclear waste from overseas, its intransigent uranium policy 
and economic rationalist policies make their denials hard to believe.

The denials are from a government that is prepared to defy the 
international community on greenhouse gases, cannot say "Sorry" to 
indigenous Australia, wants to mine a World Heritage National Park and, 
most recently, denies the right of indigenous people to self-determination. 
(See Editorial on this page) Money and profits triumph over people in 
Howard's Australia.

Talk-back radio listeners seem to have more concern for the future of the 
country than the short shelf-life politicians whose vision of the future 
usually spans no more than the period between elections.

Questions raised by listeners ranged from Maralinga and its effects; the 
transportation of the nuclear waste and the hazards involved; deep concerns 
about the safety and the irreversible nature of a nuclear dump.

Many listeners did not buy the argument that Australia would be 
contributing to disarmament by becoming a waste dump. Most callers felt 
that every country responsible for the production of nuclear waste should 
be responsible for its safe disposal.

Australia was in a unique position to share its product, synroc, to help 
with storage — in other countries.

In short, the reaction was swift and negative, so much so that the US 
Government had to distance itself from its own top presidential adviser 
Robert Galucci who reportedly urged the Australian Government to establish 
a dump for the world's nuclear waste.

At the moment it is doubtful that the proposal to turn Australia into a 
nuclear dump will go ahead, but government denials may not be the end of 
story.

Politicians of all persuasions should be let know that no matter how hard 
they may try to sell the idea, some things are not for sale.