1

SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION

I begin my submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by posting an article which I

wrote for the Australian Medical Student Journal, which outlines in some detail the medical

implications of the whole nuclear fuel chain.

The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health

Dr. Helen Caldicott

Dr Helen Caldicott is an Australian physician and a leading anti-nuclear activist. She is a widely

respected lecturer and authority on the topic, and played an integral role in the formation of the

organisations Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention

of Nuclear War. The latter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She has won numerous

prizes for her efforts, such as the Humanist of the Year award from the American Humanist

Association.

Due to my personal concerns regarding the ignorance of the world’s media and politicians

about radiation biology after the dreadful accident at Fukushima in Japan, I organized a 2 day

symposium at the NY Academy of Medicine on March 11 and 12, 2013, titled ‘The Medical and

Ecological Consequences of Fukushima,’ which was addressed by some of the world’s leading

scientists, epidemiologists, physicists and physicians who presented their latest data and

findings on Fukushima. [1]

2

Background

The Great Eastern earthquake, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, and the ensuing massive

tsunami on the east coast of Japan induced the meltdown of three nuclear reactors within

several days. During the quake the external power supply was lost to the reactor complex and

the pumps, which circulate up to one million gallons of water per minute to cool each reactor

core, ceased to function. Emergency diesel generators situated below the plants kicked in but

these were soon swamped by the tsunami. Without cooling, the radioactive cores in units 1, 2

and 3 began to melt within hours. Over the next few days, all three cores (each weighing more

than 100 tonnes) melted their way through six inches of steel at the bottom of their reactor

vessels and oozed their way onto the concrete floor of the containment buildings. At the same

time the zirconium cladding covering thousands of uranium fuel rods reacted with water,

creating hydrogen, which initiated hydrogen explosions in units 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Massive quantities of radiation escaped into the air and water – three times more noble gases

(argon, xenon and krypton) than were released at Chernobyl, together with huge amounts of

other volatile and non-volatile radioactive elements, including cesium, tritium, iodine,

strontium, silver, plutonium, americium and rubinium. Eventually sea water was – and is still –

utilized to cool the molten reactors.

Fukushima is now described as the greatest industrial accident in history.

The Japanese government was so concerned that they were considering plans to evacuate 35

million people from Tokyo, as other reactors including Fukushima Daiini on the east coast were

3

also at risk. Thousands of people fleeing from the smoldering reactors were not notified where

the radioactive plumes were travelling, despite the fact that there was a system in place to

track the plumes. As a result, people fled directly into regions with the highest radiation

concentrations, where they were exposed to high levels of whole-body external gamma

radiation being emitted by the radioactive elements, inhaling radioactive air and swallowing

radioactive elements. [2] Unfortunately, inert potassium iodide was not supplied, which would

have blocked the uptake of radioactive iodine by their thyroid glands, except in the town of

Miharu. Prophylactic iodine was eventually distributed to the staff of Fukushima Medical

University in the days after the accident, after extremely high levels of radioactive iodine – 1.9

million becquerels/kg were found in leafy vegetables near the University. [3] Iodine

contamination was widespread in leafy vegetables and milk, whilst other isotopic

contamination from substances such as caesium is widespread in vegetables, fruit, meat, milk,

rice and tea in many areas of Japan. [4]

The Fukushima meltdown disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which

remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swathes of Japan and will never

be “cleaned up.” It will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever. I predict that

the three reactors which experienced total meltdowns will never be dissembled or

decommissioned. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) – says it will take at least 30 to 40

years and the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts at least 40 years before they can

make any progress because of the extremely high levels of radiation at these damaged reactors.

This accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as

people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive food and drink radioactive beverages. In

1986, a single meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl covered 40% of the European land mass

with radioactive elements. Already, according to a 2009 report published by the New York

Academy of Sciences, over one million people have already perished as a direct result of this

catastrophe. This is just the tip of the iceberg, because large parts of Europe and the food

grown there will remain radioactive for hundreds of years. [5]

Medical Implications of Radiation

Fact number one

No dose of radiation is safe. Each dose received by the body is cumulative and adds to the risk

of developing malignancy or genetic disease.

Fact number two

4

Children are ten to twenty times more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than

adults. Females tend to be more sensitive compared to males, whilst foetuses and immuno-

compromised patients are also extremely sensitive.

Fact number three

High doses of radiation received from a nuclear meltdown or from a nuclear weapon explosion

can cause acute radiation sickness, with alopecia, severe nausea, diarrhea and

thrombocytopenia. Reports of such illnesses, particularly in children, appeared within the first

few months after the Fukushima accident.

Fact number four

Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements and radiation emitted from X-ray machines and CT

scanners can be carcinogenic. The latent period of carcinogenesis for leukemia is 5-10 years and

solid cancers 15-80 years. It has been shown that all modes of cancer can be induced by

radiation, as well as over 6000 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.

But, as we increase the level of background radiation in our environment from medical

procedures, X-ray scanning machines at airports, or radioactive materials continually escaping

from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps, we will inevitably increase the incidence of

cancer as well as the incidence of genetic disease in future generations.

Types of ionizing radiation

1. X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body.

2. Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.

3. Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known.

5

4. Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic.

5. Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.

So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into

the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each

with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain and the human

body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless

and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there

is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen H3 and there is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water as it combines with oxygen to form H3O. There is no material that can prevent the escape of tritium except gold, so all reactors continuously emit tritium into the air and cooling water as they operate. It concentrates in aquatic organisms, including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish, and also in terrestrial food. Like all radioactive elements, it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, and will therefore inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, for many decades. It passes unhindered through the skin if a person is immersed in fog containing tritiated water near a reactor, and also enters the body via inhalation and ingestion. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities and cancers of many organs.

2. Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for over 300 years. Cesium, like all radioactive elements, bio-concentrates at each level of the food chain. The human body stands atop the food chain. As an analogue of potassium, cesium becomes ubiquitous in all cells. It concentrates in the myocardium where it induces cardiac irregularities, and in the endocrine organs where it can cause diabetes, hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. It can also induce brain cancer, rhabdomyosarcomas, ovarian or testicular cancer and genetic disease.

3. Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter with a half-life of 28 years. As a calcium analogue, it is a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body. It can lead to carcinomas of the bone and leukaemia.

4. Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter. It has a half-life of eight days and is hazardous for ten weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, then in the the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen, inducing thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer. It is important to note that of 174,376 children under the age of 18 that have been examined by thyroid ultrasound in the Fukushima Prefecture,

6

12 have been definitively diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 more are suspected to have the disease. Almost 200,000 more children are yet to be examined. Of these 174,367 children, 43.2% have either thyroid cysts and/or nodules. In Chernobyl, thyroid cancers were not diagnosed until four years post-accident. This early presentation indicates that these Japanese children almost certainly received a high dose of radioactive iodine. High doses of other radioactive elements released during the meltdowns were received by the exposed population so the rate of cancer is almost certain to rise.

5. Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine. The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time. Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth.

Conclusion

In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will

have medical ramifications that will never cease, because the food will continue to concentrate

the radioactive elements for hundreds to thousands of years. This will induce epidemics of

cancer, leukemia and genetic disease. Already we are seeing such pathology and abnormalities

in birds and insects, and because they reproduce very fast it is possible to observe disease

caused by radiation over many generations within a relatively short space of time.

Pioneering research conducted by Dr Tim Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist, has

demonstrated high rates of tumors, cataracts, genetic mutations, sterility and reduced brain

size amongst birds in the exclusion zones of both Chernobyl and Fukushima. What happens to

animals will happen to human beings. [7]

The Japanese government is desperately trying to “clean up” radioactive contamination. But in

reality all that can be done is collect it, place it in containers and transfer it to another location.

It cannot be made neutral and it cannot be prevented from spreading in the future. Some

contractors have allowed their workers to empty radioactive debris, soil and leaves into

streams and other illegal places. The main question becomes: Where can they place the

7

contaminated material to be stored safely away from the environment for thousands of years?

There is no safe place in Japan for this to happen, let alone to store thousands of tons of high

level radioactive waste which rests precariously at the 54 Japanese nuclear reactors.

Last but not least, Australian uranium fuelled the Fukushima reactors. Australia exports

uranium for use in nuclear power plants to 12 countries, including the US, Japan, France,

Britain, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, China, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Taiwan. 270,000

metric tons of deadly radioactive waste exists in the world today, with 12,000 metric tons being

added yearly. (Each reactor manufactures 30 tons per year and there are over 400 reactors

globally.)

This high-level waste must be isolated from the environment for one million years – but no

container lasts longer than 100 years. The isotopes will inevitably leak, contaminating the food

chain, inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities and genetic diseases for

the rest of time.

This, then, is the legacy we leave to future generations so that we can turn on our lights and

computers or make nuclear weapons. It was Einstein who said “the splitting of the atom

changed everything save mans’ mode of thinking, thus we drift towards unparalleled

catastrophe.”

The question now is: Have we, the human species, the ability to mature psychologically in time

to avert these catastrophes, or, is it in fact, too late?

References

[1] Caldicott H. Helen Caldicott Foundation’s Fukushima Symposium. 2013; Available from:

http://www.helencaldicott.com/2012/12/helen-caldicott-foundations-fukushima-symposium/.

[2] Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis. The Japan

Times. 2012.

[3] Bagge E, Bjelle A, Eden S, Svanborg A. Osteoarthritis in the elderly: clinical and radiological

findings in 79 and 85 year olds. Ann Rheum Dis. 1991;50(8):535-9. Epub 1991/08/01.

[4] Tests find cesium 172 times the limit in Miyagi Yacon tea. The Asahi Shimbun. 2012.

[5] Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV, Sherman-Nevinger JD. Chernobyl:

Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment: Wiley. com; 2010.

8

[6] Fukushima Health Management. Proceedings of the 11th Prefectural Oversight Committee

Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey. Fukushima, Japan2013.

[7] Møller AP, Mousseau TA. The effects of low-dose radiation: Soviet science, the nuclear

industry – and independence? Significance. 2013;10(1):14-9.

Now to answer some of the questions posed by the Royal Commission

QUESTION 1.3.

1.

Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power By Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd A Fact Sheet Produced by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Physicians for Social Responsibility Thorium “fuel” has been proposed as an alternative to uranium fuel in nuclear reactors. There are not “thorium reactors,” but rather proposals to use thorium as a “fuel” in different types of reactors, including existing light‐water reactors and various fast breeder reactor designs. Thorium, which refers to thorium‐232, is a radioactive metal that is about three times more abundant than uranium in the natural environment. Large known deposits are in Australia, India, and Norway. Some of the largest reserves are found in Idaho in the U.S. The primary U.S. company advocating for thorium fuel is Thorium Power. Contrary to the claims made or implied by thorium proponents, however, thorium doesn’t solve the proliferation, waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power, and it still faces major technical hurdles for commercialization. Not a Proliferation Solution Thorium is not actually a “fuel” because it is not fissile and therefore cannot be used to start or sustain a nuclear chain reaction. A fissile material, such as uranium‐235 (U‐235) or plutonium‐239 (which is made in reactors from uranium‐238), is required to kick‐start the reaction. The enriched uranium fuel or plutonium fuel also maintains the chain reaction until enough of the thorium target material has been converted into fissile uranium‐233 (U‐ 233) to take over much or most of the job. An advantage of thorium is that it absorbs slow neutrons relatively efficiently (compared to uranium‐238) to produce fissile uranium‐233. The use of enriched uranium or plutonium in thorium fuel has proliferation implications. Although U‐235 is found in nature, it is only 0.7 percent of natural uranium, so the proportion of U‐235 must be industrially increased to make “enriched uranium” for use in reactors. Highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium are nuclear weapons materials.

9

In addition, U‐233 is as effective as plutonium‐239 for making nuclear bombs. In most proposed thorium fuel cycles, reprocessing is required to separate out the U‐233 for use in fresh fuel. This means that, like uranium fuel with reprocessing, bomb‐making material is separated out, making it vulnerable to theft or diversion. Some proposed thorium fuel cycles even require 20% enriched uranium in order to get the chain reaction started in existing reactors using thorium fuel. It takes 90% enrichment to make weapons‐usable uranium, but very little additional work is needed to move from 20% enrichment to 90% enrichment. Most of the separative work is needed to go from natural uranium, which has 0.7% uranium‐235 to 20% U‐235. It has been claimed that thorium fuel cycles with reprocessing would be much less of a proliferation risk because the thorium can be mixed with uranium‐238. In this case, fissile uranium‐233 is also mixed with non‐fissile uranium‐238. The claim is that if the uranium‐ 238 content is high enough, the mixture cannot be used to make bombs without a complex uranium enrichment plant. This is misleading. More uranium‐238 does dilute the uranium‐233, but it also results in the production of more plutonium‐239 as the reactor operates. So the proliferation problem remains – either bomb‐usable uranium‐233 or bomb‐usable plutonium is created and can be separated out by reprocessing. Further, while an enrichment plant is needed to separate U‐233 from U‐238, it would take less separative work to do so than enriching natural uranium. This is because U‐233 is five atomic weight units lighter than U‐238, compared to only three for U‐235. It is true that such enrichment would not be a straightforward matter because the U‐233 is contaminated with U‐232, which is highly radioactive and has very radioactive radionuclides in its decay chain. The radiation‐dose‐related problems associated with separating U‐233 from U‐238 and then handling the U‐233 would be considerable and more complex than enriching natural uranium for the purpose of bomb making. But in principle, the separation can be done, especially if worker safety is not a primary concern; the resulting U‐233 can be used to make bombs. There is just no way to avoid proliferation problems associated with thorium fuel cycles that involve reprocessing. Thorium fuel cycles without reprocessing would offer the same temptation to reprocess as today’s once‐through uranium fuel cycles. Not a Waste Solution Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight and long‐term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium‐only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long‐lived fission products like technetium‐99 (half‐life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository. If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium‐232 is very‐long lived (half‐life:14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium‐232 or thorium‐228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium‐232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing the an amount (mass) of insoluble

10

thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium. 3 Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long‐term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non‐radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings. Ongoing Technical Problems Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK and the U.S. for more than half a century. Besides remote fuel fabrication and issues at the front end of the fuel cycle, thorium‐U‐233 breeder reactors produce fuel (“breed”) much more slowly than uranium‐plutonium‐239 breeders. This leads to technical complications. India is sometimes cited as the country that has successfully developed thorium fuel. In fact, India has been trying to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades but has not yet done so commercially. One reason reprocessing thorium fuel cycles haven’t been successful is that uranium‐232 (U‐232) is created along with uranium‐233. U‐232, which has a half‐life of about 70 years, is extremely radioactive and is therefore very dangerous in small quantities: a single small particle in a lung would exceed legal radiation standards for the general public. U‐232 also has highly radioactive decay products. Therefore, fabricating fuel with U‐233 is very expensive and difficult. Not an Economic Solution Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once‐through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly. In addition, as noted, inhalation of thorium‐232 produces a higher dose than the same amount of uranium‐238 (either by radioactivity or by weight). Reprocessed thorium creates even more risks due to the highly radioactive U‐232 created in the reactor. This makes worker protection more difficult and expensive for a given level of annual dose. Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long‐term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non‐radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings. Fact sheet completed in January 2009

Updated July 2009

QUESTION 1.8, 1.10

The medical consequences of uranium mining are numerous and far reaching. In the past

over 50% of uranium miners died of lung cancer as a result of inhaling radon, a gas, and a

daughter product of uranium. As well they were exposed to the inhalation and ingestion of

radium, a soluble deadly carcinogen discovered by Madame Curie which is a calcium

analogue and migrates to bones and teeth where it can induce bone cancer, and leukemia.

11

Because of better ventilation in underground mines the incidence of lung cancer has

declined amongst uranium miners, however it is pertinent that Australian uranium miners

have never been followed up to ascertain whether they have, and have had a higher than

normal incidence of malignancies, and whether their offspring have been affected because

their testicles are exposed to gamma radiation - similar to X rays) which is emitted from

the uranium ore face. Incidentally face masks do not capture radon as it is a gas. This lack of

follow up is a severe omission in government responsibilities which must be remedied.

Miners in open cut mines are also exposed to radium in the dust, radon gas in the air and

gamma radiation emitted from the ore face.

Some relevant references found at the end of the submission

1. 2.

QUESTION 2.4

The global nuclear industry is in a state of decline partly as a result of the disastrous accident at

Fukushima but also as a result of the rapid expansion of ever cheaper solar and wind power

together with conservation.

References below

3.4. 5. 6. 7.

QUESTION 2.5

Emerging technologies that may affect the decision for South Australia to invest in the nuclear

fuel chain.

I include below numerous articles attesting to the economic viability of geothermal power, and

wind and solar power in the present and near future.

South Australia is perfectly placed to be the world’s most potent renewable energy state, with

an abundance of solar, wind and geothermal energy all waiting to be tapped.

If this state decided to give a full commitment to renewables, not only would it substantially

increase employment and the GDP, but it could become one of the energy superpowers of the

world and a shining example of what the world needs.

12

1. Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes

Posted: 12/22/2013 7:55 pm EST Updated: 02/21/2014 5:59 am EST Huffington Post

Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes

We can have the energy we need without emitting carbon or using nuclear energy.

That's the takeaway from my recent interview with Dr. Arjun Makhijani on Progressive Radio

Network (www.prn.fm, "All Together Now"). At the request of the esteemed Dr. Helen

Caldicott, Dr. Makhijani did the first analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of

transitioning to a U.S. economy based completely on renewable energy, with no carbon dioxide

emissions and no nuclear energy.

Despite his own initial skepticism, his research led him to conclude, Yes, we can do this. Dr.

Makhijani lays out the path forward in his book, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for

U.S. Energy Policy.

I recently interviewed Dr. Makhijani on my radio show on Progressive Radio Network. He

earned a Ph.D. in engineering (with specialization in nuclear fusion) from the University of

California at Berkeley, then went on to warn people about the dangers of nuclear energy. When

Dr. Caldicott asked him to write a book on meeting our energy needs without carbon pollution

or nuclear power and offered to raise the money to do it, he was skeptical it could be done,

thinking it would be too expensive.

I asked him what he discovered in his research that made him believe it is possible. He replied:

"We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is making renewables more

economically feasible. We can make this happen." Since the book was published, the pace of

technology change has continued to accelerate.

- Wind power has been economical for years. In 2006, solar electric was five times more

expensive than it needed to be to compete as a source for home energy, but it is becoming

competitive.

- As demand goes up, the cost of production goes down: manufacturers can shift from custom-

made to larger scale production. The price of silicon needed for solar cells is down. A few years

ago, you'd pay $4 a watt for a solar panel, now it's 70 cents a watt.

"I thought we'd need major legislation such as a price on carbon through a carbon tax or

trading emissions," said Dr. Makhijani. "But the technological developments are making

renewables economically feasible without any major legislation." Thank God we don't have to

rely on legislation passed by our increasingly dysfunctional Congress. He continued, "I thought

13

it would take to the middle of the century; now, if we try hard, it could be much faster -- by

2035 or 2040."

Demand for renewables is coming from many directions. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster,

Japan increased its use of renewables, and is now the second largest market for solar energy,

bigger than the U.S. Among the largest buyers of solar electricity in the US is that great bastion

of radicals, the Pentagon. They are also leading in alternative energy. It makes sense, given that

the military understands our vulnerability to disruption in oil supplies: if our oil supply were cut

from the Mideast and elsewhere, we'd need renewables to ensure enough stable energy at

home. Of course, climate is a security issue: more extreme weather increases the need for

more domestic energy supplies.

Demand for renewables is also coming from the states which are leading this energy revolution.

States from California to Maryland are passing incentives and lifting standards that increase

demand for renewables.

Dr. Makhijani offers a clear goal -- a zero CO2 economy -- which gives policy coherence and a

yardstick by which we can measure progress. He identifies 12 critical policies to be enacted to

achieve it. I asked him, "What are the most important things we need to do to have affordable

energy without using fossil fuels or nuclear energy?" He replied:

"We can eliminate half of our energy consumption through efficiency; we can get the rest of

our energy from renewables."

When I asked, "Where can we have the most impact for the money?" he replied without

hesitation, "Enact high efficiency standards for buildings, appliances, and vehicles."

-Mandate more efficient cars. We're doing and need to do more. Cars have been made that get

200 miles per gallon; we can have a standard of 100 mpg by 2030. Push plug-in hybrids.

-Increase efficiency standards for appliances. Some existing standards are proceeding well. A

refrigerator used to consume 1800 kw-hours per year; today you can buy a larger, better

performer that uses only 400 kw- hours per year. A 100-watt bulb today of good quality uses

1/5 or 1/7 the electricity of an incandescent lamp. But standards for air conditioning and

heating are lagging far behind available technology.

-Fix existing buildings. Most old buildings are not well-insulated and waste lots of energy. When

a house is sold, we could mandate that buildings meet a certain standard of energy efficiency,

like fire codes and electrical safety standards. We can do it, but it's not required, so it's not

being done at the level we need.

Some people don't like regulations, but they can work well.

14

Since Dr. Makhijani was the principal author of the first comprehensive review of US energy

efficiency in 1971, I asked him, "Where did we make progress in the past 40 years, and where

do we still need to act?"

I was a staff member of the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation during the 1973

energy crisis. Our report became the basis of President Carter's energy policy. Today we use

less than half of the energy we thought we'd use by now: energy use has not grown much, but

the economy is 2-3 times bigger.

So that's good progress. We'd be in even better shape if the U.S. hadn't dropped the ball on

energy policy in the 1980s. Since Carter, we haven't had a coherent overall energy policy, so we

tend to scatter limited resources on bits and pieces.

What about limiting those pernicious carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, do you support cap and

trade, or a carbon tax? Dr. Makhijani said: "I thought cap and trade would be efficient, but they

made it too complicated, so I'm glad it didn't pass. A carbon tax is good, but we won't get it

passed in Congress."

Other actions we can take include:

- Stop subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels and the nuclear industry.

- Stop subsidies for biofuels.

- Use government buying power to encourage the development of renewable supply

technologies.

- Ban new coal fired plants.

Dr Makhijani is generously giving away free digital copies of his important book, Carbon-Free

and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy on his website, ieer.org. Now that's some

holiday cheer.

More:

Energy Nuclear Free Gift Policy Climate Energy Published on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 by Common

Dreams

Costs Down, Profits Up: Green Energy Looking Good, Says UN

'A long-term shift in investment over the next few decades towards a cleaner energy portfolio is needed to avoid dangerous climate change'

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

15

(Flickr / Black Rock Solar / Creative Commons license)

Costs are down, profits are up, and renewable energy is contributing an increasing amount of

electricity to the world's energy grids, according the United Nations. With that information in

mind, governments must now "re-evaluate investment priorities, shift incentives, build capacity

and improve governance structures” to shift towards a green energy system.

The report, conducted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Bloomberg

New Energy Finance, reveals renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are showing

"many positive signals of a dynamic market that is fast evolving and maturing," stated Achim

Steiner, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of UNEP.

While the industry has been struggling to gain momentum over the previous four years, 2013

saw a 54 per cent increase in energy stocks – "an improvement that took place as many

companies in the solar and wind manufacturing chains moved back towards profitability after a

painful period of over-capacity and corporate distress."

“While some may point to the fact that overall investment in renewables fell in 2013," said

Steiner, this is actually largely because less money was needed to run the industry, whose costs

continue a downward trend.

As countries such as China and Japan led the renewable energy boom, overall renewables

accounted for 44% of 2013’s "newly installed generating capacity."

“This should give governments the confidence to forge a new robust climate agreement to cut

emissions at the 2015 climate change conference in Paris,” said Steiner.

These advances have a drastic impact on the climate, the report notes. "Were it not for

renewables, world energy-related CO2 emissions would have been an estimated 1.2 gigatonnes

higher in 2013," it states. "This would have increased by about 12 per cent the gap between

16

where emissions are heading and where they need to be in 2020 if the world is to have a realistic

prospect of staying under a two degree Centigrade temperature rise."

“A long-term shift in investment over the next few decades towards a cleaner energy portfolio is

needed to avoid dangerous climate change," said Steiner.

Michael Liebreich, Chairman of the Advisory Board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance,

added: “Lower costs, a return to profitability on the part of some leading manufacturers, the

phenomenon of unsubsidized market uptake in a number of countries, and a warmer attitude to

renewables among public market investors, were hopeful signs after several years of painful

shake-out in the renewable energy sector.”

2. QUESTION 3.9

Lessons from Fukushima and other nuclear accidents

Nuclear power plants, whatever their design, can never be made safe - they are at risk

because of human fallibility (causes of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island), computer error,

hacking, loss of external electricity supply, results of global warming with sea level rise or

tsumamis with flooding of the control room, hurricanes, heating of water supplies such as

occurred in France some years ago when the river water was too hot to cool the reactors.

1000 megawatt reactors require up to one million gallons per minute to keep them cool.

Below in the list of references number 8 is a presentation by a very experienced nuclear

engineer named Arnie Gunderson re the risks of another nuclear accident.

Now the medical consequences of Fukushima and Chernobyl are very important for the Royal Commission to examine. A major nuclear accident contaminates large numbers of people, land and food inducing diseases for millennia to come. Nuclear accidents never end. References 9, 10, 11 in footnotes

QUESTION 3.11

17

Nuclear power plants do not stand alone. They are supported by a massive industrial infrastructure which is dependent upon the extensive use of fossil fuels and other potent greenhouse gases. I refer you to this excellent paper which puts nuclear power and global warming into perspective

Footnote 12

QUESTION 3.12

Nuclear wastes are multifactorial and are composed of many different radioactive isotopes, some which last seconds and others which remain radioactive for millions of years.

Radioactive elements are carcinogenic, mutagenic, and can cause a variety of diseases including cancers of all organs, leukemia, birth deformities and genetic diseases of which there are now over 2600 described, such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis, haemochromotosis, haemophilia etc.

Long lived radioactive elements will over time migrate from any container or waste repository, enter the water system and from there migrate and concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain, as described above in my opening article of this submission.

No container, be it steel, titanium, concrete etc lasts longer than 100 years and furthermore we will not be around to see the medical effects of our devotion to nuclear power and all things nuclear. That is for future generations to experience, this is the nuclear heritage we leave to them.

1. Here is a chart of the large number of isotopes made in CANDU reactors, however all nuclear reactors produce similar elements. Footnote 13

2. Below is a summary of the health impacts of the entire nuclear fuel chain footnote 14

3. Here is an article describing the impact of uranium mining on US indigenous people,

the same diseases that are occurring and will occur in our aboriginal populations that

live adjacent to operating or abandoned uranium mines as the tailings remain

radioactive forever to contaminate the air they breathe and the water they drink .

Footnote 15

QUESTION 3.13

I have described the risks involved by establishing nuclear facilities for the generation of

electricity from nuclear fuels above. Nothing can be done to ensure that the risks

described above can be prevented, as there are no safe levels of radiation, each dose of

radiation is cumulative, and the nuclear fuel chain will continue to contaminate the

environment and human bodies with increased levels of radiation for the rest of time.

And this generation will be long gone.

18

QUESTION 3.14

There are no safeguards as addressed above that can, nor will ever address the dangers

arising from the generation of nuclear energy

QUESTION 3.15 and 3.16

Numerous models and designs for Generation 1V reactors have been mooted recently

for South Australia.

Here is an article I wrote summarizing the latest information on these proposed reactors

Helen Caldicott Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Founder

Womens’ Action for Nuclear Disarmament

Small Modular Reactors Huffington Post

Posted: 08/07/2014 8:59 pm EDT Updated: 10/07/2014 5:59 am EDT

Now that the "nuclear renaissance" is dead following the Fukushima catastrophe, when

one sixth of the world's nuclear reactors closed, the nuclear corporations -- Toshiba,

Nu-Scale, Babcock and Wilcox, GE Hitachi, General Atomics, and the Tennessee Valley

Authority -- will not accept defeat.

Their new strategy is to develop small modular reactors (SMRs), allegedly free of the

dangers inherent in large reactors: safety issues, high cost, proliferation risks and

radioactive waste.

But these claims are fallacious, for the reasons outlined below.

Basically, there are three types of SMRs, which generate less than 300 megawatts of

electricity compared with current 1,000-megawatt reactors.

1. Light-water reactors

These will be smaller versions of present-day pressurized water reactors, using water as

the moderator and coolant, but with the same attendant problems as Fukushima and

Three Mile Island. Built underground, they will be difficult to access in the event of an

accident or malfunction.

19

Because they're mass-produced (turnkey production), large numbers must be sold

each year to make a profit. This is an unlikely prospect, because major markets – China

and India -- will not buy U.S. reactors when they can make their own.

If safety problems arise, they all must be shut down, which will interfere substantially

with electricity supply.

SMRs will be expensive because the cost per unit capacity increases with a decrease in

reactor size. Billions of dollars of government subsidies will be required because Wall

Street is allergic to nuclear power. To alleviate costs, it is suggested that safety rules be

relaxed, including reducing security requirements, and reducing the 10-mile emergency

planning zone to 1,000 feet.

2. Non-light-water designs

These include high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) or pebble-bed reactors.

Five billion tiny fuel kernels consisting of high-enriched uranium or plutonium will be

encased in tennis-ball-sized graphite spheres that must be made without cracks or

imperfections -- or they could lead to an accident. A total of 450,000 such spheres will

slowly and continuously be released from a fuel silo, passing through the reactor core,

and then recirculated 10 times. These reactors will be cooled by helium gas

operating at high very temperatures (900 degrees C).

A reactor complex consisting of four HTGR modules will be located underground, to be

run by just two operators in a central control room. Claims are that HTGRs will be so

safe that a containment building will be unnecessary and operators can even leave the

site ("walk-away-safe" reactors).

However, should temperatures unexpectedly exceed 1,600 degrees C, the carbon

coating will release dangerous radioactive isotopes into the helium gas, and at 2,000

degrees C the carbon would ignite, creating a fierce, Chernobyl-type graphite fire.

If a crack develops in the piping or building, radioactive helium would escape, and air

would rush in, also igniting the graphite.

Although HTGRs produce small amounts of low-level waste, they create larger volumes

of high-level waste than conventional reactors.

Despite these obvious safety problems, and despite the fact that South Africa has

abandoned plans for HTGRs, the U.S. Department of Energy has unwisely chosen the

HTGR as the "next-generation nuclear plant."

20

3. Liquid-metal fast reactors (PRISM)

It is claimed by proponents that fast reactors will be safe, economically competitive,

proliferation-resistant, and sustainable.

They are fueled by plutonium or highly enriched uranium and cooled by either liquid

sodium or a lead-bismuth molten coolant. Liquid sodium burns or explodes when

exposed to air or water, and lead-bismuth is extremely corrosive, producing very volatile

radioactive elements when irradiated.

Should a crack occur in the reactor complex, liquid sodium would escape, burning or

exploding. Without a coolant, the plutonium fuel could reach critical mass, triggering a

massive nuclear explosion, scattering plutonium to the four winds. One millionth of a

gram of plutonium induces cancer, and it lasts for 500,000 years. Extraordinarily, they

claim that fast reactors will be so safe that they will require no emergency sirens, and

that emergency planning zones can be decreased from 10 miles to 1,300 feet.

There are two types of fast reactors: a simple, plutonium-fueled reactor and a

"breeder," in which the plutonium-reactor core is surrounded by a blanket of uranium

238, which captures neutrons and converts to plutonium.

The plutonium fuel, obtained from spent reactor fuel, will be fissioned and converted to

shorter-lived isotopes, cesium and strontium, which last 600 years instead of 500,000.

The industry claims that this process, called "transmutation," is an excellent way to get

rid of plutonium waste. But this is fallacious, because only 10 percent fissions, leaving 90

percent of the plutonium for bomb making, etc.

Then there's construction. Three small plutonium fast reactors will be grouped together

to form a module, and three of these modules will be buried underground. All nine

reactors will then be connected to a fully automated central control room operated by

only three operators. Potentially, then, one operator could face a catastrophic situation

triggered by loss of off-site power to one unit at full power, another shut down for

refueling and one in startup mode. There are to be no emergency core cooling systems.

Fast reactors require a massive infrastructure, including a reprocessing plant to dissolve

radioactive waste fuel rods in nitric acid, chemically removing the plutonium, and a fuel

fabrication facility to create new fuel rods. A total of 15 to 25 tons of plutonium are

required to operate a fuel cycle at a fast reactor, and just five pounds is fuel for a

nuclear weapon.

21

Thus fast reactors and breeders will provide extraordinary long-term medical dangers

and the perfect situation for nuclear-weapons proliferation. Despite this, the

industry plans to market them to many countries.

QUESTIONS 4.2 to 4.10

These questions are best addressed by the following film, and I suggest that everyone

on the Royal Commission watch this extraordinary documentary to ascertain the gravity

of burying radioactive waste in South Australia be it Australian waste or indeed the

world’s nuclear waste. This waste would obviously be buried on Aboriginal land, near or

over the Great Artesian basin, the life-blood of central Australia.

There has never been and will never be a scientifically guaranteed method for isolating

long lived carcinogenic nuclear waste for the ecosphere for one million years – the

current requirement on the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products,

Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate

spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic

elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life

24,000 years). Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to

successfully isolate it from interacting with the environment. This usually necessitates

treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or

transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form. Governments around the world are

considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been

limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.

For example, Yucca Mountain in Nevada which has been mooted to store US high level

waste is composed of pumice and thus is highly permeable to water, it is transected by

several earthquake faults, one of which is called the Ghost Dance, and it also overlies

the aquifer that supplies Las Vegas.

There is no container whether it is steel, concrete, titanium etc that will last for over one

hundred years, so the notion of storing radioactive waste isolated from the ecosphere

for one million years is pure fantasy. Footnotes 16, 17, 18

QUESTION 4.10

22

Transportation accidents occur every day whether on roads, freeways or railways. Here are just some examples of accidents involving radioactive cargos. An accident involving high level waste in or near a city or town could have disastrous consequences contaminating a large area for hundreds of years, contaminate the workers who try to clean it up and induce in the residents, malignancies and other diseases described above, as well as contaminating their food supply. Footnotes 19 20, 21, 22

QUESTION 4.12

The introduction of the world’s nuclear waste into the relatively pristine

state of South Australia will sully its international reputation which relies

upon its outstanding wine production plus its magnificent food and

agriculture, renowned throughout Australia and indeed the world

I can reassure you that this outstanding and well deserved reputation would

almost certainly be severely impaired if South Australia decides to embark

upon a major industrial undertaking of the nuclear fuel chain together with

nuclear reactors, enrichment facilities, reprocessing plants and radioactive

waste storage.

In fact from my experience communicating with knowledgeable people all

over the world, the reputation of Australian food in general would also

suffer.

1.

2011-resolution-urani

um-ban.pdf

uranium-factsheet1.p

df

uranium-factsheet2.p

df

uranium-factsheet3.p

df

uranium-factsheet4.p

df

2. Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiation Large study of nuclear workers

shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of

leukaemia. http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-

23

3. l Lowdose-radiation-1.17876The World Nuclear Industry Status Report

2015Lower resolution (4.3Mb

4. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-nuclear-industry-decline-idUKKCN0PP0AX20150715

5. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/uranium-stocks-a-mixed-bad-for-investors/story-e6frg9lo-1227425900301

6. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2014/highlights48 Published on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 by Common Dreams

7. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/energy-revolution-2014/.

8. Chances of ANOTHER Nuclear Meltdown ONCE EVERY 7 ...

▶ 6:38

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KukkhsUFFg

In Fairewinds’ latest video, Chief Engineer and nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen updates

viewers on what’s going on at the Japanese nuclear meltdown site, Fukushima Daiichi.

9. IPPNW-Report "Health consequences resulting from Fukushima" (2013)

10. IPPNW-Report "Health consequences resulting from Fukushima Update 2015"

(German) 11. Health Effects of Chernobyl - IPPNW

www.ippnw.org/pdf/chernobyl-health-effects-2011-english.pdf

12. ]Nuclear power, energy security and CO emission - Storm ...

www.stormsmith.nl/Media/downloads/nuclearEsecurCO2.pdf

13. http://www.ccnr.org/hlw_chart.html

14.

summary20130302.p

df

24

15. 2015

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/abandoned_uranium_mine

below Sonia Luokkala – May 5,

16. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126221144

17. http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/

18. Into Eternity The Movie

19. http://www.wiseinternational.org/node/4175

20. .http://www.ustream.tv/itsoureconomy 21. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580722/Radiation-quarantine-Canadian-port-

container-filled-uranium-falls-loaded-ship.html#ixzz2wBxvgKlH 22. http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/ltfs-full.pdf