Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australia’s legislation regarding nuclear and radiation issues has an unfortunate legacy that goes back to a past where the mere words ‘radiation’ or ‘nuclear’ engendered fear and loathing in the community. As such, we find that the legislation is overly prescriptive, with the result that many unforeseen issues that are currently appearing are not able to be adequately dealt with due to the rigid and overly confining clauses within the acts. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to redress some of the issues that have surfaced.

For example, there are a number of Commonwealth facilities that deal with radioactive material in some form or another. Problematically, the act as it currently stands effectively prohibits ANSTO from assisting in preparing the material for disposal or indeed storing this material. The legacy of this is that there are numerous Commonwealth facilities throughout Australia that have radioactive material, and it is dealt with by these individual organisations. ‘Haphazard’ would be too strong a word to be used for the current situation, but it is fair to say that it would be preferable to have a coordinated approach for the Commonwealth radioactive material. It is also clear that Australia’s premier nuclear research organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, is the body that is best equipped and resourced to accept responsibility for this coordinated approach.

I believe that most in this House would accept that some radioactive materials in Australia are essential. Some of our colleagues have benefited from nuclear medicine, and I am certain that they would acknowledge the benefits that have accrued from their treatment. As we know, however, everything has a cost, and the cost associated with this treatment is some radioactive waste. In addition to medical treatments, we accept that we need to conduct scientific research. Neutron scattering is used in the characterisation of many materials, and this brings considerable benefit to our understanding of material science. We also insist that houses and other buildings have smoke detectors. Smoke detectors use americium-241 in order to detect the smoke particles. The obvious cost, once again, is that we have radioactive waste that we need to dispose of.

We have future medical treatments that also need to be considered. I have spoken previously in this House about a very effective cancer treatment known as proton beam therapy. Hadron beam therapy is a very similar technology and, using a synchrotron, allows the generation of either hadrons or protons for treatment. My colleague the member for Moore has already spoken about this in his talk on the bill. The cost, once again, is some radioactive material that we need to deal with.

Radiation does not need to be feared; it needs to be understood. Radiation is all around us. There is no such thing as a natural background radiation level. Radiation levels vary with geology, building construction methods, climate, altitude and the time of day, among a whole raft of factors that influence the radiation that we are exposed to. European homes tend to have far higher radiation levels than Australian homes, due to the fact that they tend to be sealed in cold weather. As such, the radon that emanates from many of the building materials is not flushed by natural airflow that we enjoy most of the time in Australia with open windows. Perhaps members opposite who are paranoid about radiation should consider a career change. This building that we all work in has relatively high levels of radiation, due to the large amounts of granite used in the construction. Add to that the fact that the building is not open to natural airflow and you end up with relatively high radon levels as well. Radon is a daughter product of uranium decay.

The fact is we evolved in a sea of radiation. We are still bathed in a radiation sea, albeit of lower intensity than was the case many millions of years ago. Having evolved in the surrounding radiation, our bodies not only adapted to radiation but, indeed, need radiation to survive. Studies have been conducted and conclusively show this. Tests were conducted on lab rats where the level of surrounding radiation was reduced to the greatest extent possible. It was found that these rats became ill to a far greater extent than a group of control rats.

This has been further highlighted by studies conducted in the United States of America. Cancer rates were compared between three Rocky Mountain states and three gulf states. The Rocky Mountain states, being both at altitude and having large amounts of granite, have levels of radioactivity approximately three times higher than the gulf states. If people such as Helen Caldicott who say that there is no safe lower threshold and any additional radiation is harmful were correct, you would expect that the Rocky Mountain states would have a higher incidence of cancer than the gulf states. In fact, it was found that the reverse was the case, that the gulf states had a cancer rate 21 per cent higher than the Rocky Mountain states.

There was a similar instance in Taiwan with so-called ‘hot’ apartments. There were 1,700 apartments built in the early 1980s, and the steel used in the reinforcement had hot cadmium 60—and I am talking about ‘hot’ in a radioactive sense. When this was discovered about 15 years later, a study was conducted. It was found that some of the inhabitants had been exposed to radiation levels high enough that, if they had received this dose in one hit, they would have been killed. What is interesting is that, when the rates of both cancer and birth deformities for the inhabitants were analysed, it was found that the rates for the inhabitants of these ‘hot’ apartments were only about one-twentieth of the Taiwanese average.

This phenomenon is known to medical science as hormesis. In simple terms, it means that something that is fatal in large doses can actually be beneficial in small doses. Arsenic is an example of chemical hormesis, as is selenium. In fact we need some levels of arsenic and selenium in our systems in order to survive. As such, the so-called linear, no threshold hypothesis on exposure to ionising radiation is shown to be incorrect. This theory was the result of studies conducted on fatalities of people due to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The trend is correct at higher doses of radiation, but extrapolation for very low doses resulted in an error.

One of the facts that those deploring all things nuclear fail to acknowledge is that the waste from nuclear processes is contained and small in volume. The fact is that all of the waste can be safely handled and disposed of, unlike in many other industrial processes, where emissions go out of the flue and into the atmosphere. There are various other solid, liquid and gas waste forms that cannot be adequately handled and disposed of. These wastes, therefore, find their way into the natural environment with all of the resultant consequences.

This bill is about allowing ANSTO, as the foremost expert on things nuclear in Australia, to deal with these radioactive wastes—to handle and dispose of these wastes in a manner that has a minimal environmental impact. In this way, Commonwealth generated radioactive waste will be better and more safely disposed of than just about any other waste that is generated in Australia. As with many in the environmental group, I wish to see our industry and power generators leave a smaller environmental footprint. Earlier I indicated that the footprint left by the nuclear industry is minuscule compared with that of most other industries. This is something that we need to embrace, not shy away from.

There is also the economic cost of energy production to consider. When I stated to one of my constituents in Tangney that it might be possible to generate most of our power using renewables but at 10 to 15 times the cost, she said she would be happy to pay for it. This constituent, understandably, was from one of the more affluent areas in my electorate. I pointed out that, while she may be able to afford it, the majority of Australians do not have the luxury of the large amount of disposable income required to achieve this. This is a problem we have with some of the so-called green elites. It is very easy for them to say, ‘To hell with the cost—this is what we need to do,’ but it shows scant regard for the wellbeing of their fellow Australians, the people whom they state they are speaking for.

There are of course all the flow-on costs that would be associated with such an increase in the cost of electricity. Consider the motor vehicle industry. Car manufacturers are moving to using more and more aluminium in the structure of engines to reduce weight. This weight reduction will have a resultant beneficial effect on fuel consumption. Now think about what would happen if the price of electricity increased massively. Aluminium production uses electricity intensively, so a large increase in electricity costs would increase the cost of aluminium. Car manufacturers, who are focused on the bottom line, would then not continue the move to aluminium, instead returning to steel and thus using greater amounts of cheaper steel again. This would have a negative effect on fuel consumption, so more oil would be consumed, exacerbating our dependence on oil imports, whilst at the same time adding to emissions from vehicle tailpipes.

Many other industries would be similarly affected. In terms of the general cost of electricity production, we need to consider not only the situation now, but into the future. Natural gas has already seen significant increases in price, leading to higher gas generated electricity prices even before you talk about carbon capture. I have never shied away from the fact that I am a sceptic when it comes to anthropogenic climate change, but it appears that the world is moving toward carbon capture. State of the art with carbon capture technologies means that, if introduced right now, the price of electricity is likely to double for coal fired power. Optimistic projections are that around 20 to 30 years into the future the penalty would be about a 30 per cent increase in power bills. The problem with these capture technologies is that they reduce the efficiency with power generation, so more coal or gas is required. This means more oil will be consumed for the mining, transportation and so on of the fuel, adding to our imports and increasing the emissions from other sources, such as trucks or diesel electric trains, which would also not have carbon capture technologies.

Oil is running out. There are synthetic alternatives, such as oil from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process. This has been used economically in South Africa for the past 50-odd years, and the process allows oil production at approximately $US40 per barrel, depending on the price of coal. The fact we need to face in this context is that the price of coal—or gas, as the Fischer-Tropsch process can be used for gas-to-liquids as well—will increase significantly, further adversely affecting the price of electricity. ANSTO recently commissioned an independent study on the economics of nuclear energy. This study concluded that nuclear power is competitive for Australia using advanced generation III reactors. This is provided that a few reactors are built and is the same as would occur with any other power generation method where the economies of scale associated with having more than one power plant are critical.

The economics associated with generation IV reactors will be even better, given modular construction, standardised design and inherent safety. The lower power output of these units will allow their introduction on a staged basis, allowing their economically viable introduction into service. A factor that is also included in the bill relates to allowing ANSTO to conduct analysis with any event where there is a presence of radiometrics. This is critical, as we need to have our most expert body involved in any event of this sort in order to facilitate a timely resolution to these events.

There has been some discussion of the possibility of a terrorist attack. A nuclear reactor is one of the toughest targets for a terrorist to attack. It would be far easier for them to target coal or gas fired power stations, various chemical factories, oil refining, et cetera. Nuclear reactors are extremely tough targets. They have very high site security. By their nature they are extremely tough, due to containment buildings. Many generation IV reactors will be sited below ground level, making effective attack very difficult. The contrast between this and many other chemical or power facilities is stark. In this age of terrorism, the most secure method of power generation is nuclear power. Of all the facilities that have been targeted, nuclear reactors have not been.

It was, sadly, predictable that many of the speakers from the other side of the House should seek to use this bill to continue their efforts to raise fear in the community regarding nuclear energy and waste. The reality is that community attitudes are evolving. People accept nuclear medicine. Many of us have friends and family members who have been assisted by these medical breakthroughs. Nuclear power generation is no longer the scary monster Labor seeks to promote. What Labor is really concerned about is that understanding brings acceptance, and for a party with little understanding and a lot of fear it exposes them to the electorate.

I encourage members opposite to contact ANSTO and ask for a site visit—to find out the facts and gain an understanding of the way that uranium touches each and every one of us in our daily lives. Then decide your policy position. It is scary and disconcerting to watch otherwise. The public are over your shuffling around. They want information and hard facts. You are in danger of losing the debate before it starts. They are suffering motion sickness just watching you. I commend ANSTO, their board and staff for their commitment and dedication. I trust that this bill gives them the additional protections and authorities they need. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context