NUCS ARTICLE
For: Nuclear Free Australia http://www.nukefreeaus.org/
Word count: 2634
Purpose: To target some mags to publish the article.
TOPIC: “The push to expand uranium mining and its connection with the international push to expand nuclear energy for the purposes of being part of the mix to solve climate change.”
THE EXPANSION OF URANIUM MINING AND NUCLEAR ENERGY TO SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE!
Nuclear mining and nuclear energy has been a topical issue for decades, as campaigners and green peace activists it is not only our job to try and stop this but it is our duty. Many of us can only relate to nuclear energy or products from the popular T.V sitcom, The Simpsons, of which the creators tend to make the whole issue of nuclear energy and uranium mining as a satire, if not comical, sweep under the carpet kind of a joke really of what could be the future of our lives or the choice of occupations we hold if we don’t take our life and our world seriously. Not to mention the often picked on Homer Simpson, who can only get a position of employment at a nuclear plant because he has no other serious prospects or qualifications? Billions of people I imagine watch The Simpsons every week all across the world and what do you suppose the image of this portrays? Not only is television being used to undermine the seriousness of uranium mining and nuclear energy, they are mocking it and teaching our children that it is okay, that this is the way things are done and will be done and that there is not that much ramifications about it, that it is big business and its ok and well if Homer Simpson holds, that position of looking after a nuclear plant than it mustn’t be that bad after all? Well, in my opinion that is the reflection of it and what is being generated out there! But as we take a closer look, yes a big greedy cold hearted business man owns the plant and a foolish uneducated man (Homer Simpson) is in charge of supervising its safety. What does that tell us about reality? Does this really happen in the real world that uneducated people look after the nuclear plants, and if so, then we have to wonder how do they manage it? Or is it just all a joke? When will it be taken seriously? If anything children aren’t stupid and if they are responsible for taking over from us then they will know that by watching The Simpsons that yes a greedy cold hearted man who doesn’t care about children or their workers is running the nuclear plant or else if he cared he would not place someone like Homer Simpson in charge of its safety! But is Homer Simpson really as stupid as he is being portrayed as? Often in episodes of The Simpsons, we see Homer always being a bit goofy and “drifting off on the job” and “coming in late for work”, “eating on the job”, “creating accidents” or “forgetting his job”, but whenever disaster occurs (notice there is always a disaster occurring on the plant, almost in every episode), who saves the day? You got it! It is always Homer Simpson.
I believe the television sitcom; The Simpsons can teach us a lot of things. If in nearly every episode there is a nuclear disaster occurring or some possible devastation likely to occur, than just maybe our children will pick that up as serious and start to think that, ‘Hey, maybe nuclear plants aren’t so great?” and if Homer Simpson is always saving the day (an average man and not the rich man who owns it), then maybe our children will start to think, “Hey, if Homer Simpson can fix the problem, maybe I can do something about it too!’.
Well, running a nuclear plant and overseeing its safety in regards to nuclear energy and uranium mining, may not be deemed as a serious occupation for The Simpsons, but it is serious to our families and our world if we do not take responsibility of our own backyard, and make it a growing interest or concern for the well being of our families our nation and our world. We can do this by stepping up to the plate and taking some action, even if it is writing a letter to parliament or signing a petition (Go to http://www.gopetition.com.au/ for a free sign up or to create your own petition).
Then that is what we all need to do, if we want to see industries and big corporations change in the way they operate and dump waste so the devastating problem and aftermath affect such as the green house affect, is not dumped on our children and our children’s children doorstep and back yard to fix. It is our problem to fix it and we need to fix it, today, before it gets too big.
Currently one area that the world is trying to find better ways of doing things (or so they think), is to push to expand uranium mining around the world, as a reader what do you think about this? If you are reading this article, no doubt you have some concern for our environment or your desire to see a positive change implemented in the way we look after our land, or that you are trying to find out a bit more about it, well good for you, if you are reading this article, it means you care and no it isn’t good to see our natural water catchments, being polluted, our wildlife being destroyed and our natural eco systems being ignored for the profit that comes with industrialisation and privatisation of big business. What does profit get you anyway? Who does it actually help? Who is it destroying? How can we help? The real question is how do we stop the push to expand uranium mining, and how can we save our animals, our natural beauty and our lives in the process?
The sad thing is these global organisations, don’t believe what they are doing is actually wrong, they really do think that they are creating solutions to the problem of climate change. We as consumers and activists do, why does that seem odd? Not only are they trying to push to expand uranium mining on an international scale, they are also trying to expand nuclear energy and what they say the reasons for doing this is for the “purposes of being part of the mix to solve climate change.” Is there something wrong with this thinking? How can by expanding nuclear plants and uranium mining solve the problem of climate change when it is in my opinion, exactly what contributed to the problem to begin with! As well as that, how is it interconnected?
Another area that may interest you is that not only does organisations believe what they are doing is wrong, they are encouraging investors to also believe that what they are doing is wrong. From a recent article published by The Age, in August of this year, written by Frances Howe, “Uranium mining, nuclear power and 'ethical' investment”, tells that most fund managers do question their investment and that even though investment in this area has risen, it is because big companies such as BHP endorse its effectiveness, and says its ok to invest. “The primary reason for the shift is probably BHP Billiton's entry into the uranium industry with its 2005 acquisition of WMC Resources, which owns the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia (Howe, 2008).”
The article further tells us that out “of 16 ethical investment funds studied, just two allow absolutely no investment in uranium or nuclear power. According to the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia, Australian responsible investment portfolios grew from $4.5 billion to $17.1 billion from 2004 to 2007 (Howe, 2008).
This is a typical example that money speaks louder than words. It is big business that’s all it is, of which is apparently worth, $2 Trillon worldwide, who wouldn’t invest in it? Do you think that the real push is the fact they are white washing the truth to such investors by making them believe, “Hey, it’s for a good cause, its to help climate change!” and by supporting this we will get the big boys (BHP) to jump on board and that will say it is ok? I mean people aren’t stupid, they were waking up, investors were waking up and from what the above article describes they were starting to ask the big question, “How can nuclear energy and uranium mining be any good for the environment, and contribute to the solution of climate change?”, but as soon as too many investors were asking the question, bang, along comes BHP and they all drop their money in the bag!
So you are probably asking, what can we do about it? Well we can follow Friends of the Earths suggestion, (May, 2007) and become a “united front against uranium mining, exports and nuclear energy.” We can sign a petition, write an article or protest outside BHP! Set up a website and tell all our friends and family and whoever we know to go green, we can contact Greenpeace, Friends of the earth and other campaign groups and take some action. For example in 2006, “Greenpeace Australia Pacific, The Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and 13 other groups have spelt out the environment movements’ opposition to all aspects of the nuclear industry (FOE, 2006).” And almost a year later, it looks like we will have to unite again! Friends of the earth, believes, “Support for uranium mining and its export means support for a dangerous and environmentally destructive process to generate nuclear energy and develop nuclear weapons,” of which The Wilderness Society’s national campaigns director Alec Marr said (FOE, 2006).”
And furthermore, “Nuclear energy is no solution to climate change. Even if there was a doubling of global nuclear energy output by 2050 it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Chief Executive Steve Shallhorn said. “Nuclear power poses unacceptable proliferation and security risks, it is not clean, it is not cheap, and there is no solution to the intractable problem of nuclear waste (FOE, 2006).”
The Australian Greens also agree in destroying uranium mining and demolishing the use of nuclear energy. The Greens say on their website (http://greens.org.au/) “The Australian Greens want to end uranium mining and export in Australia. Uranium mining is the first link in the dirty and dangerous nuclear chain, providing the fuel for nuclear reactors, fission nuclear weapons and depleted uranium weapons. Its end product is radioactive waste. Over half of the world’s uranium is in Australia and Canada, and most of Australia's richest uranium deposits are located on land which is owned, claimed or occupied by Aboriginal people. Once uranium leaves Australian shores, the Federal Government cannot actually control its use in nuclear arms manufacture or testing despite claims that safeguards agreements will achieve this.”
We may all be aware of the dangerous uranium deal (the Nuclear Co-operation Agreement with Russia) that was made by the Howard’s government with Russia in 2007, where Prime Minister John Howard and Russia’s Vladimir Putin were to ratify, lets hope that while it is still on the table, that our new government Mr. Kevin Rudd, will refuse to sign it. The Australian Greens say, “This is a bad deal for Australia, and there is no guarantee Australian uranium won’t be used to free up Russian domestic uranium for their weapons programme,” said Australian Greens spokesperson on nuclear issues, Senator Scott Ludlam (The Australian Greens, 2008).”
The nuclear fact is, “A doubling of nuclear power would reduce global greenhouse emissions by only 5%. Uranium is also a finite resource, just as fossil fuels are (Green, 2006).”
Furthermore, The Australian Greens, state that “that modest climate dividend assumes that coal is the reference point. But compared to most renewable energy sources and to energy efficiency measures, nuclear power produces more greenhouse emissions per unit energy produced or saved, in addition to its legacy of nuclear waste and the weapons proliferation risks (Greens, 2006).”
Either way, most people agree that nuclear power is not the answer. Professor Ian Lowe, President
of the Australian Conservation Foundation quotes: “Nuclear is not the answer because:
Nuclear power emits large amounts of greenhouse gases through mining, milling and transport;
Nuclear power is highly dangerous, unsafe and has considerable health risks;
Nuclear energy uses lots of water;
The cost of nuclear energy is significantly higher than that of renewable energy.”
From the same Council’s, they’re research, says that there are currently 442 working nuclear power plants throughout the world, of which provide 16% of the world's electricity and only 2.5% of global energy demand. A number of environmental problems are evident in the usage of nuclear power (Conservation Council, 2008).
It is a known fact that Australia is fast becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste. It is a prominent topic on the news with the Rudd government “ruling out accepting nuclear waste from other countries”. Nuclear waste is a big enough issue for “the Rudd government to have to review their involvement” (couriermail.com.au) in the matter, as said at an international nuclear forum, just recently. That means to look at the damages it is having on our environment on an international scale!
What does this mean for us, as participants in this world? After reading this article, is there a way of really stopping it? Or should we just join the, ‘big deal if it doesn’t concern me, so why care?’ group, or ‘I don’t see it, it isn’t in my backyard, so really why am I even reading this article!’...well if you thought any of those thoughts, or similar they are all good points….seriously we don’t much think about things like this on a daily basis do we? I mean do we really get up everyday and say, “Hey, I wonder what has been dumped in my backyard? I wonder if it is green and icky, I wonder if it is nuclear waste, cool!” No we don’t! And the closest thing to nuclear reactors and waste we know, as from reading this article, is the one we see Homer Simpson operating in the popular US comic sitcom, The Simpsons.
This brings us to a bit of an issue, doesn’t it? If it isn’t happening in our backyard and we can’t see it, should we really care? Well my answer to that is absolutely! The debate about radioactive or nuclear waste being dumped continues, as well as the debate on climate change, nuclear energy and uranium mining. It is not only an issue for Australians to fight in order to protect our lives and our future but it is a global fight to save mankind! It may not be affecting us right now because we can’t see it, but it is definitely affecting us everyday, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it is not happening.
An ABC news article (June 2008) quotes: “Apart from radioactive waste from uranium mines, usually dealt with by the mines themselves, Professor Johnston estimates there are around 500 stockpiles of low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste scattered around Australia.” And now we have to deal with international treaties signed between governments to increase uranium mining and to increase the building of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy plants. When will it ever stop and when will we ever be given a break in regards to nuclear waste, energy and uranium mining? When will the government come up with a real solution to a real issue? Rather than white washing it, and sugar-coating the solution of climate change to be nuclear energy and uranium mining? It is a real problem, with real solutions that do not have to be attached to nuclear stuff. Why try solving the problem with deceit by created dissolutions to the very people that have the power and resources to make real positive changes? So what will you do to make a real difference?
For: Nuclear Free Australia http://www.nukefreeaus.org/
Word count: 2634
Purpose: To target some mags to publish the article.
TOPIC: “The push to expand uranium mining and its connection with the international push to expand nuclear energy for the purposes of being part of the mix to solve climate change.”
THE EXPANSION OF URANIUM MINING AND NUCLEAR ENERGY TO SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE!
Nuclear mining and nuclear energy has been a topical issue for decades, as campaigners and green peace activists it is not only our job to try and stop this but it is our duty. Many of us can only relate to nuclear energy or products from the popular T.V sitcom, The Simpsons, of which the creators tend to make the whole issue of nuclear energy and uranium mining as a satire, if not comical, sweep under the carpet kind of a joke really of what could be the future of our lives or the choice of occupations we hold if we don’t take our life and our world seriously. Not to mention the often picked on Homer Simpson, who can only get a position of employment at a nuclear plant because he has no other serious prospects or qualifications? Billions of people I imagine watch The Simpsons every week all across the world and what do you suppose the image of this portrays? Not only is television being used to undermine the seriousness of uranium mining and nuclear energy, they are mocking it and teaching our children that it is okay, that this is the way things are done and will be done and that there is not that much ramifications about it, that it is big business and its ok and well if Homer Simpson holds, that position of looking after a nuclear plant than it mustn’t be that bad after all? Well, in my opinion that is the reflection of it and what is being generated out there! But as we take a closer look, yes a big greedy cold hearted business man owns the plant and a foolish uneducated man (Homer Simpson) is in charge of supervising its safety. What does that tell us about reality? Does this really happen in the real world that uneducated people look after the nuclear plants, and if so, then we have to wonder how do they manage it? Or is it just all a joke? When will it be taken seriously? If anything children aren’t stupid and if they are responsible for taking over from us then they will know that by watching The Simpsons that yes a greedy cold hearted man who doesn’t care about children or their workers is running the nuclear plant or else if he cared he would not place someone like Homer Simpson in charge of its safety! But is Homer Simpson really as stupid as he is being portrayed as? Often in episodes of The Simpsons, we see Homer always being a bit goofy and “drifting off on the job” and “coming in late for work”, “eating on the job”, “creating accidents” or “forgetting his job”, but whenever disaster occurs (notice there is always a disaster occurring on the plant, almost in every episode), who saves the day? You got it! It is always Homer Simpson.
I believe the television sitcom; The Simpsons can teach us a lot of things. If in nearly every episode there is a nuclear disaster occurring or some possible devastation likely to occur, than just maybe our children will pick that up as serious and start to think that, ‘Hey, maybe nuclear plants aren’t so great?” and if Homer Simpson is always saving the day (an average man and not the rich man who owns it), then maybe our children will start to think, “Hey, if Homer Simpson can fix the problem, maybe I can do something about it too!’.
Well, running a nuclear plant and overseeing its safety in regards to nuclear energy and uranium mining, may not be deemed as a serious occupation for The Simpsons, but it is serious to our families and our world if we do not take responsibility of our own backyard, and make it a growing interest or concern for the well being of our families our nation and our world. We can do this by stepping up to the plate and taking some action, even if it is writing a letter to parliament or signing a petition (Go to http://www.gopetition.com.au/ for a free sign up or to create your own petition).
Then that is what we all need to do, if we want to see industries and big corporations change in the way they operate and dump waste so the devastating problem and aftermath affect such as the green house affect, is not dumped on our children and our children’s children doorstep and back yard to fix. It is our problem to fix it and we need to fix it, today, before it gets too big.
Currently one area that the world is trying to find better ways of doing things (or so they think), is to push to expand uranium mining around the world, as a reader what do you think about this? If you are reading this article, no doubt you have some concern for our environment or your desire to see a positive change implemented in the way we look after our land, or that you are trying to find out a bit more about it, well good for you, if you are reading this article, it means you care and no it isn’t good to see our natural water catchments, being polluted, our wildlife being destroyed and our natural eco systems being ignored for the profit that comes with industrialisation and privatisation of big business. What does profit get you anyway? Who does it actually help? Who is it destroying? How can we help? The real question is how do we stop the push to expand uranium mining, and how can we save our animals, our natural beauty and our lives in the process?
The sad thing is these global organisations, don’t believe what they are doing is actually wrong, they really do think that they are creating solutions to the problem of climate change. We as consumers and activists do, why does that seem odd? Not only are they trying to push to expand uranium mining on an international scale, they are also trying to expand nuclear energy and what they say the reasons for doing this is for the “purposes of being part of the mix to solve climate change.” Is there something wrong with this thinking? How can by expanding nuclear plants and uranium mining solve the problem of climate change when it is in my opinion, exactly what contributed to the problem to begin with! As well as that, how is it interconnected?
Another area that may interest you is that not only does organisations believe what they are doing is wrong, they are encouraging investors to also believe that what they are doing is wrong. From a recent article published by The Age, in August of this year, written by Frances Howe, “Uranium mining, nuclear power and 'ethical' investment”, tells that most fund managers do question their investment and that even though investment in this area has risen, it is because big companies such as BHP endorse its effectiveness, and says its ok to invest. “The primary reason for the shift is probably BHP Billiton's entry into the uranium industry with its 2005 acquisition of WMC Resources, which owns the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia (Howe, 2008).”
The article further tells us that out “of 16 ethical investment funds studied, just two allow absolutely no investment in uranium or nuclear power. According to the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia, Australian responsible investment portfolios grew from $4.5 billion to $17.1 billion from 2004 to 2007 (Howe, 2008).
This is a typical example that money speaks louder than words. It is big business that’s all it is, of which is apparently worth, $2 Trillon worldwide, who wouldn’t invest in it? Do you think that the real push is the fact they are white washing the truth to such investors by making them believe, “Hey, it’s for a good cause, its to help climate change!” and by supporting this we will get the big boys (BHP) to jump on board and that will say it is ok? I mean people aren’t stupid, they were waking up, investors were waking up and from what the above article describes they were starting to ask the big question, “How can nuclear energy and uranium mining be any good for the environment, and contribute to the solution of climate change?”, but as soon as too many investors were asking the question, bang, along comes BHP and they all drop their money in the bag!
So you are probably asking, what can we do about it? Well we can follow Friends of the Earths suggestion, (May, 2007) and become a “united front against uranium mining, exports and nuclear energy.” We can sign a petition, write an article or protest outside BHP! Set up a website and tell all our friends and family and whoever we know to go green, we can contact Greenpeace, Friends of the earth and other campaign groups and take some action. For example in 2006, “Greenpeace Australia Pacific, The Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and 13 other groups have spelt out the environment movements’ opposition to all aspects of the nuclear industry (FOE, 2006).” And almost a year later, it looks like we will have to unite again! Friends of the earth, believes, “Support for uranium mining and its export means support for a dangerous and environmentally destructive process to generate nuclear energy and develop nuclear weapons,” of which The Wilderness Society’s national campaigns director Alec Marr said (FOE, 2006).”
And furthermore, “Nuclear energy is no solution to climate change. Even if there was a doubling of global nuclear energy output by 2050 it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Chief Executive Steve Shallhorn said. “Nuclear power poses unacceptable proliferation and security risks, it is not clean, it is not cheap, and there is no solution to the intractable problem of nuclear waste (FOE, 2006).”
The Australian Greens also agree in destroying uranium mining and demolishing the use of nuclear energy. The Greens say on their website (http://greens.org.au/) “The Australian Greens want to end uranium mining and export in Australia. Uranium mining is the first link in the dirty and dangerous nuclear chain, providing the fuel for nuclear reactors, fission nuclear weapons and depleted uranium weapons. Its end product is radioactive waste. Over half of the world’s uranium is in Australia and Canada, and most of Australia's richest uranium deposits are located on land which is owned, claimed or occupied by Aboriginal people. Once uranium leaves Australian shores, the Federal Government cannot actually control its use in nuclear arms manufacture or testing despite claims that safeguards agreements will achieve this.”
We may all be aware of the dangerous uranium deal (the Nuclear Co-operation Agreement with Russia) that was made by the Howard’s government with Russia in 2007, where Prime Minister John Howard and Russia’s Vladimir Putin were to ratify, lets hope that while it is still on the table, that our new government Mr. Kevin Rudd, will refuse to sign it. The Australian Greens say, “This is a bad deal for Australia, and there is no guarantee Australian uranium won’t be used to free up Russian domestic uranium for their weapons programme,” said Australian Greens spokesperson on nuclear issues, Senator Scott Ludlam (The Australian Greens, 2008).”
The nuclear fact is, “A doubling of nuclear power would reduce global greenhouse emissions by only 5%. Uranium is also a finite resource, just as fossil fuels are (Green, 2006).”
Furthermore, The Australian Greens, state that “that modest climate dividend assumes that coal is the reference point. But compared to most renewable energy sources and to energy efficiency measures, nuclear power produces more greenhouse emissions per unit energy produced or saved, in addition to its legacy of nuclear waste and the weapons proliferation risks (Greens, 2006).”
Either way, most people agree that nuclear power is not the answer. Professor Ian Lowe, President
of the Australian Conservation Foundation quotes: “Nuclear is not the answer because:
Nuclear power emits large amounts of greenhouse gases through mining, milling and transport;
Nuclear power is highly dangerous, unsafe and has considerable health risks;
Nuclear energy uses lots of water;
The cost of nuclear energy is significantly higher than that of renewable energy.”
From the same Council’s, they’re research, says that there are currently 442 working nuclear power plants throughout the world, of which provide 16% of the world's electricity and only 2.5% of global energy demand. A number of environmental problems are evident in the usage of nuclear power (Conservation Council, 2008).
It is a known fact that Australia is fast becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste. It is a prominent topic on the news with the Rudd government “ruling out accepting nuclear waste from other countries”. Nuclear waste is a big enough issue for “the Rudd government to have to review their involvement” (couriermail.com.au) in the matter, as said at an international nuclear forum, just recently. That means to look at the damages it is having on our environment on an international scale!
What does this mean for us, as participants in this world? After reading this article, is there a way of really stopping it? Or should we just join the, ‘big deal if it doesn’t concern me, so why care?’ group, or ‘I don’t see it, it isn’t in my backyard, so really why am I even reading this article!’...well if you thought any of those thoughts, or similar they are all good points….seriously we don’t much think about things like this on a daily basis do we? I mean do we really get up everyday and say, “Hey, I wonder what has been dumped in my backyard? I wonder if it is green and icky, I wonder if it is nuclear waste, cool!” No we don’t! And the closest thing to nuclear reactors and waste we know, as from reading this article, is the one we see Homer Simpson operating in the popular US comic sitcom, The Simpsons.
This brings us to a bit of an issue, doesn’t it? If it isn’t happening in our backyard and we can’t see it, should we really care? Well my answer to that is absolutely! The debate about radioactive or nuclear waste being dumped continues, as well as the debate on climate change, nuclear energy and uranium mining. It is not only an issue for Australians to fight in order to protect our lives and our future but it is a global fight to save mankind! It may not be affecting us right now because we can’t see it, but it is definitely affecting us everyday, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it is not happening.
An ABC news article (June 2008) quotes: “Apart from radioactive waste from uranium mines, usually dealt with by the mines themselves, Professor Johnston estimates there are around 500 stockpiles of low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste scattered around Australia.” And now we have to deal with international treaties signed between governments to increase uranium mining and to increase the building of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy plants. When will it ever stop and when will we ever be given a break in regards to nuclear waste, energy and uranium mining? When will the government come up with a real solution to a real issue? Rather than white washing it, and sugar-coating the solution of climate change to be nuclear energy and uranium mining? It is a real problem, with real solutions that do not have to be attached to nuclear stuff. Why try solving the problem with deceit by created dissolutions to the very people that have the power and resources to make real positive changes? So what will you do to make a real difference?
Bibliography
Antinuclear Australia, (2008) Nuclear Wastes, Accessed: Tuesday, 9 September 2008[found at] http://antinuclear.net/Aust%20-%20wastes.htm
Conservation Council, (2008), Natural Resource Management and Climate Change [On line] Monday, 13 October 2008, Accessed at: http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=32
Couriermail.com.au. (2008), Australia won't accept nuclear waste, says government. Accessed: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 [found at] http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24022857-5012321,00.html
Friends of the Earth, (2006), United front against uranium mining, exports and nuclear energy [May, 8th, 2006] [On line] Monday, 13 October 2008 Accessed at:
http://www.foe.org.au/media-releases/2006-media-releases/mr_08_05_06.htm
Green J, (2006), Nuclear Power and Climate Change, (Jim Green www.energyscience.org.au) Monday, 13 October 2008[On line] Accessed at:
http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS03%20Nucl%20Power%20Clmt%20Chng.pdf
Green Left On line, (2008) The nuclear 'solution' to climate change (3 May 2008)
[On line] Accessed on: Monday, 13 October 2008. Found at:http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/749/38742
Global Climate Change Action, (2008), The fate of the earth is in our hands, [On line] Monday, 13 October 2008, Accessed at: http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/
Howe, F, (2008) Uranium mining, nuclear power and 'ethical' investment, [The Age News; 19th August, 2008 at 12:33pm AEST] Monday, 13 October 2008 [0n line] Accessed at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2339607.htm
The Australian Greens, (2008), Uranium Mining, Monday, 13 October 2008[On line] Accessed at:http://greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/667/all?page=1
