Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The NEW CAPITAL of The WORLD, BALLARAT, VICTORAIA, AUSTRALIA
Originally Posted by vera susa
...well this is WHY 'they' ARE...
Originally Posted by yass
Speaking of Britney's, poses, and SEX, SEX, SEX
Originally Posted by vera susa
Major union bans uranium work
QUICK SUMMARY | FULL STORY
A major union expects others to join its campaign
to "starve" Australia's uranium industry of workers.
The Electrical Trades Union has banned its members from working on uranium mines, nuclear power stations or any other part of the nuclear fuel cycle.
The ETU says other unions have expressed strong support for the campaign against uranium, which it has labelled the "new asbestos" of the workplace.
"We're sick of hearing about nuclear power as the panacea of global warming, we're sick of people sweeping safety issues under the carpet," ETU secretary Peter Simpson said.
"Our view is there's enough ETU labour in the place ... that we'll be able to starve the industry out."
He was speaking at the launch in Brisbane of an anti-uranium DVD, When the Dust Settles, alongside pediatrician and activist Dr Helen Caldicott.
The DVD, to be sent to ETU members in Queensland and the Northern Territory, is a warning about the health risks the union says come with working with uranium.
Mr Simpson said Australian workers had already faced decades of exposure, and uranium was the new asbestos of the workplace.
"Over the next 10 or 15 years we're going to see the downside of (uranium)," he said.
"They've had 30 years to pretty much do what they like and we believe now's the time to put the line in the sand.
"... we want to get all unions and all community groups on board and start taking the fight back up to the uranium industry."
He declined to name the two unions he said were supporting the ETU's campaign.
Dr Caldicott said Australia's uranium export industry meant the nation was "selling cancer and we're selling nuclear weapons".
She said Muckaty Station, near Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, would likely become a nuclear waste dump and eventually the waste would leak into the environment and food chain.
"It's random compulsory genetic engineering for the rest of time," she said.
The Australian Uranium Association has rejected claims that radiation exposure poses a significant risk to workers.
It also said the ETU's threat to expel members who contravene its work ban could breach the Fair Work Act.
"Uranium mines are safe workplaces," the association's CEO Michael Angwin said.
"Mine operators and mine employees work together,
using the right equipment and designated procedures,
to ensure that radiation exposure is kept to the minimum."
Rudd pushes uranium bosses' agenda
Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 10:00
By Zoe Kenny
It now appears certain that the ALP's national conference,
to be held in Sydney from April 27-29,
will drop the party's "no new uranium mines" policy,
adopted in 1998.
This will satisfy the big mining companies' desire
to expand uranium mining.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd and his "left-wing" deputy, Julia Gillard,
are leading the push to scrap the policy.
A decision to scrap the current policy would fly in the face of public opinion — a May 2006 Newspoll showed that 66% of Australians, and 78% of ALP voters, are opposed to any new uranium mines or want uranium mining to stop altogether.
But with the market price for uranium at record highs, major mining companies are falling over themselves to make big profits from Australia's vast, low-cost uranium deposits — 40% of the world's total. Labor's uranium push is driven by its need to prove itself a loyal servant to the interests of big business in order to get corporate backing in this year's federal election.
The widely expected latest Labor "U-turn" on uranium will not be as big a betrayal of ALP voters' wishes as its backflip in the early 1980s.
A year after winning the 1983 federal election, Labor's parliamentary caucus forced the dropping of party's position of outright opposition to the mining, processing and export of uranium — a policy Labor had held for seven years and which was a major contributing factor to its March 1983 election victory. In its place, the "three mines" policy was adopted. This allowed the continued operation of the Ranger, Nabarlek and Olympic Dam uranium mines.
Although uranium had been mined in Australia since the start of the 20th century, opposition to it did not become popular until the 1970s. The impetus for a mass movement against uranium mining was a new wave of uranium exploration and prospecting that began in 1967.
Some of the biggest uranium deposits were discovered in the Alligator Rivers area in the Northern Territory, in particular the Ranger and Jabiluka deposits. As more uranium was discovered in the region, the projected boundaries for the proposed Kakadu National Park continued to shrink until the park was half its original proposed size.
However, unlike earlier uranium mining pushes, this time the desire of mining companies to fully exploit the resources was met with a growing awareness of, and opposition to, the dangers of uranium mining. The experience of the Rum Jungle mine in NT contributed to this opposition.
During its lifetime, from the early 1950s to the early '70s, this mine discharged hundreds of tonnes of mineral pollutants into the Finniss River, including enough radium to cause 90 million cases of bone cancer, according to a 1975 report by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
Trade unions were also increasingly concerned about the health effects on their members working in or around uranium mines. Since the early '20s it was known that radon gas caused high levels of mortality from lung cancer among mine workers.
Between the mid-'70s and the mid-'80s, a mass movement developed that mobilised hundreds of thousands of people against uranium mining. This movement was given considerable support by the trade unions as well as the rank-and-file members of the ALP.
The anti-uranium movement was strengthened by the lessons gained by many left activists in the successful mass campaign against the Vietnam War. The anti-war movement had shown them the power of repeated mass street demonstrations around clear demands to draw large numbers of working people into extra-parliamentary political action, exerting growing political pressure for a change in government policy.
In 1976, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Friends of the Earth and the Movement Against Uranium Mining (MAUM) declared that they would mount a campaign as big as that waged against that Vietnam War, with the campaign as a whole deciding in November to demand a five-year moratorium on the mining and export of uranium.
The anti-uranium movement grew rapidly. The first demonstrations were held on Hiroshima Day in August 1976. By October of that year, a national day of street marches mobilised 70,000 people across the country. Demonstrations of tens of thousands of opponents of uranium mining became regular occurrences through to the end of the 1970s.
In 1975, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) voted at its national congress to ban all uranium mining except for biomedical use. Acting in accordance with the ban, in 1976 the Australian Railway Union called a 24-hour national stoppage that successfully forced the reinstatement of a railyard supervisor in Townsville who had been fired for refusing to allow the delivery of chemicals to the Mary Kathleen uranium mine in Queensland.
However, while the sentiment of many of the unions affiliated to the ACTU was for upholding the 1975 congress line, the ACTU's ALP-aligned leadership continually pushed for a watering down of opposition to uranium mining.
This tension led to the situation where in early 1978, at the same time that 10 unions participated in a MAUM national consultation and almost 3500 wharfies voted unanimously to reject all uranium shipments, a special ACTU conference, led by ACTU president Bob Hawke, adopted a compromise position allowing existing uranium contracts to be fulfilled although not supporting the opening of any new mines.
Despite the rightward pressure of the ACTU leadership, the union movement's opposition to uranium mining continued to grow. A February 1981 meeting of 24 unions covering workers with possible connections to the uranium mining industry voted to enforce work bans on all uranium mines. This was in clear defiance of the Hawke-led resolution of the 1978 special conference.
The bans seriously hurt the uranium industry. Shipments due to leave through Darwin were brought to a standstill, forcing the Fraser government to organise its own airlifts of uranium out of the country. The profits of Queensland's Mary Kathleen mine dropped from $6 million in the second half of 1980 to $1.7 million in the first half of 1981. Mass demonstrations continued around the country to support the union bans.
However, the industry was saved by the intervention of the ALP leadership. In November 1981, federal Labor leader Bill Hayden announced his opposition to the bans. In December, the ACTU executive fell into line, voting to lift all bans until the following February.
In its preparation for the 1983 federal election, the ALP leaders worked hard to satisfy big business that they could be relied on to keep the existing highly lucrative uranium mines going, regardless of what the ranks of the ALP wanted.
Already, in the 1980 federal election, the ALP had played down the issue of opposition to uranium mining, even though in the previous election it had been a vote winner. The ALP also intervened to allow the Olympic Dam uranium mine to go ahead.
In the early '80s, as Washington escalated its Cold War nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union — with plans for a Strategic Defence Initiative missile "shield" to neutralise the Soviet nuclear missile deterrent — the anti-uranium mining movement was strengthened by a renewed opposition to nuclear weapons
Until the mid-'80s, protests involving hundreds of thousands of people calling for an end to the nuclear arms race were a regular occurrence.
In 1983, Labor won the federal election with Hawke as its leader. Hawke soon made it clear that ALP opposition to the uranium mining was a thing of the past.
While France was conducting nuclear bomb tests in the south Pacific, Hawke opposed cutting uranium exports to France. He also reaffirmed the ALP's support for the Australia-New Zealand-United States military alliance, including visits to Australian ports by US nuclear-armed naval vessels.
Hawke's minerals and energy minister granted export licences for uranium from the Ranger and Nabarlek mines in the NT.
In late 1983, Hawke forced a pro-uranium resolution through the federal Labor caucus and completed the ALP's betrayal of the movement and its own ranks at the 1984 ALP national conference. The "three mines" policy was adopted.
Following the Coalition parties' electoral victory in 1996, the ALP replaced the "three mines" policy with a "no-new-mines" policy. This barred a future federal Labor government from revoking the mining licence on any uranium mine approved by PM John Howard's Coalition government.
The anti-uranium campaign in the 1970s and '80s showed that a mass movement aligned with a mobilised and militant trade union movement could succeed in almost shutting down Australia's part in the nuclear fuel cycle. But it also shows that the unions' close links with and political subordination to the pro-business ALP were the major reason for the eventual defeat of the campaign.
The experience of the 1984 sell-out should have put to rest the idea that the ALP can ever be a real friend to the environment movement. Unfortunately, many in the environment movement still hold illusions in Labor governments as a vehicle to combat the corporate polluters.
Many environmental organisations, such as ACF, which in the '70s formed part of the militant leadership of the anti-uranium campaign, devote most of their campaigners' hours on lobbying ALP conference delegates. This approach narrows the movement into the pro-uranium mining framework of the ALP.
Any decision to scrap the last remaining vestiges of an anti-uranium policy at the upcoming ALP conference will only confirm that the ALP seeks to govern on behalf of the big business magnates at the expense of the environment and the wellbeing of working people. The only way to defeat the nuclear menace is to build a movement that is genuinely independent of the meddling of pro-corporate ALP and Coalition.
June 2, 2010
Tehran has enough material for
two nuclear bombs, IAEA says
Catherine Philp, Washington
Iran has amassed enough fissile material to build two nuclear bombs, according to the United Nations atomic watchdog.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA’s) last report before a Security Council vote on proposed new sanctions for Iran also detailed how its inspectors have been denied access to facilities.
It renders obsolete Iran’s efforts to revive a fuel-swap deal which was aimed at delaying the moment it reaches nuclear capability.
The report said Iran has continued to evade questions over evidence of weapons work while improving its uranium enrichment capabilities.
* Iran sanctions deal agreed, Clinton says
* Iran strikes nuclear limitation deal
Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium stands at two tonnes, enough to arm two nuclear warheads if enriched further. The country, which has been ordered five times by the Security Council to halt enrichment until weapons questions are addressed, defied the international community to begin enriching uranium to 20 per cent, bringing it closer to weapons-grade fuel. It claims that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only and says that it needs the 20 per cent fuel to make medical isotopes.
It began the higher enrichment process after the collapse of an IAEA deal to ship most of its nuclear fuel stocks abroad in return for 20 per cent fuel rods.
Western countries and Russia backed that deal in the hope that it would delay the moment when Iran amassed enough fuel to be able to build a bomb.
Iran rejected the deal then, but recently revived it with the backing of Turkey and Brazil, offering to ship the material to Turkey in the hope of forestalling any attempt to impose sanctions.
The new report suggests, however, that the amount agreed, 1,200kg (2,650lb), would still leave Iran with enough material for one bomb.
Washington has won the tentative backing of Russia and China for sanctions mostly targeting the Revolutionary Guard, the guardians of the nuclear programme, but has failed to win agreement on more stringent economic restrictions.
treaty conference set for
showdown between U.S., Iran
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 3, 2010
UNITED NATIONS -- A global nuclear conference that opens Monday is shaping up as a showdown between Iran and the United States, with each side jockeying for allies in the escalating dispute over the Islamic republic's nuclear program.
The New York conference is held every five years to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the 40-year-old pact aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Technically, Iran is not on the agenda.
But the Obama administration sees the conference as a crucial opportunity to advance ideas to strengthen the fraying treaty, such as punishing nuclear cheaters and further regulating the supply of nuclear fuel.
Iran is expected to block such steps. Any decision by the conference must be reached by consensus.
"This meeting is all about Iran," said a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivity. "Because Iran poses the biggest threat to the survival of the treaty."
The fireworks will begin with a morning speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and an afternoon address by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton said Sunday that Ahmadinejad would try to divert attention from his nuclear program at a moment when an American-led drive to impose new economic sanctions is picking up steam.
Iran denies that it is building a bomb. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, censured the Islamic republic last year for secretly constructing a nuclear facility and defying U.N. resolutions on uranium enrichment.
"We're not going to permit Iran to try to change the story from their failure to comply," Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Many analysts see the month-long New York meeting as a major test of Obama's nuclear strategy, which seeks to establish U.S. leadership on arms control to press others to live up to their obligations. Obama recently signed a new arms-reduction treaty with Russia and held a summit on nuclear terrorism.
Lew Dunn, an arms-control official during the Reagan administration, said that "if the non-nuclear-weapons states don't step up to the plate" at the conference, it would be a blow to the Obama strategy. Momentum for further disarmament, he said, "will drop precipitously." He spoke last week at the Henry L. Stimson Center think tank.
The 189-member NPT is the most important international nuclear-weapons pact. It is essentially a bargain: The original five nuclear powers agree to take steps to disarm, and other countries forswear building a bomb but retain the right to develop nuclear energy.
The last NPT review ended in failure, in part over the U.S. refusal to reaffirm its commitment to a 1995 resolution backing the idea of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East. That issue threatens to dominate this conference as well.
Tehran has mustered sympathy among attendees by portraying itself as the victim of a nuclear double standard. It argues that countries friendly with the nuclear powers, such as Israel, are allowed to possess nuclear weapons but that others aren't. Israel, which has not joined the NPT, neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons.
"We don't think that there should be first-class countries that are acquiring nuclear weapons and second-class countries that are not in possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East," Egypt's U.N. ambassador, Maged A. Abdelaziz, told reporters last week. "We say that in order to be able to deal with the Iranian issue, you have to address the nuclear capabilities of Israel."
Egypt, which chairs the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement, is calling for negotiations starting next year on establishing the nuclear-free zone. U.S. officials say that is unrealistic because many countries in the region don't recognize Israel.
But the Obama administration is seeking a compromise, such as a preliminary meeting to discuss the conditions necessary to eventually create the nuclear-free zone.
The administration needs support from Egypt and non-aligned countries to advance its proposals, which include a more intensive nuclear-inspection regime and punishment for countries such as North Korea that quit the treaty after working on a bomb.
The U.S. government has virtually given up on getting such ideas into a final consensus document. But officials are seeking a "supermajority" for a plan that could be taken up in other bodies in which Iran has less influence, such as the IAEA.
A plan "that draws the support of all but a few outliers would meet the definition of success," Ellen O. Tauscher, undersecretary of state for arms control, said in a speech last week at the Center for American Progress.
Israel key to conference
on banning nuclear arms
Posted in May 29th, 2010
by Farhad Abdolian in Activism, General, IAEA, Iran, Iran's Nuclear program, Israel, Media, Middle East, Obama, Peace, Politics, Road to War, Technology, UN, US, World
I think this is positive, any step toward a nuclear free world is a positive step.
The only problem is the language by the US/Obama administration in regards of Iran’s nuclear program.
If they had a smallest amount of decency in their blood, they would have cheered up all countries who want to create a nuclear free world and put pressure on the Apartheid regime of Israel to sign the NPT and accept IAEA to visit and investigate their nuclear facilities, the same way they are asking Iran to do so.
The world can not be free from nuclear weapons as long as the world leaders accept such double standards. Something that IRI dictatorship is using to justify their criminal behavior.
Israel key to conference on banning nuclear arms - Yahoo! News
Israel key to conference on banning nuclear arms
Under its action plan, the five recognized nuclear-weapon states — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — commit to speed up arms reductions, take other steps to diminish the importance of atomic weapons, and report back on progress by 2014. The plan also has 24 steps to promote nonproliferation including making the treaty universal to include Israel, Pakistan India and North Korea, to encourage tighter inspections and controls on nuclear trade to prevent development of secret weapons programs.
James JonesAP – FILE - Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones testifies
on Capitol Hill in Washington in this Sept. 6, …
UNITED NATIONS – After 15 years, Arab nations finally won agreement from the United States and the other nuclear powers to take the first step toward banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East. Now, the next move is Israel’s.
Although the U.S. joined the 188 other member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Friday in giving a green light to a conference in 2012 “on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction,” senior U.S. officials appeared to backtrack afterward, setting several conditions for the talks to go ahead.
Taking the toughest line, U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said in a statement Friday night that the United States has “serious reservations” about the 2012 conference and believes Mideast peace and full compliance by all countries in the region to their arms control and nonproliferation obligations “are essential precursors.” The compliance demand appeared to be aimed at Iran, which the U.S. believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons program despite Tehran’s claims its only goal is nuclear power.
Jones also strongly defended longtime U.S. ally Israel, which was singled out for not being a member of the NPT. He said the United States “deplores” the naming of Israel which puts prospects for the 2012 conference “in doubt.” As a cosponsor of the conference, Jones said the United States will ensure that it will only takes place “if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend.”
The Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone — to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads — was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on. At this month’s NPT review, a conference to begin talks on a nuclear-free Mideast was considered by many delegates as “the make-or-break issue,” and agreement on the 2012 meeting was widely welcomed after the 28-page final declaration was approved by consensus.
But the U.S. reaction raised questions and doubts about whether Israel, Iran and other countries in the Mideast will even hold a meeting in two years.
Several delegates suggested that earlier comments by U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher and President Barack Obama’s coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, Gary Samore, warning about the difficulties of holding a conference and persuading Israel to attend may have been sparked by the upcoming visit of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday.
Egypt’s U.N. Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, speaking for the 118-nation Nonaligned Movement of mainly developing countries, said that during the negotiations there was “a little bit of disagreement” on mentioning Israel.
But he said NAM members thought that since the document issued at the end of the 2000 NPT review conference mentioned the need for Israel to join the treaty and subject its nuclear capabilities to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards there was “no going back on that commitment” and Israel had to be mentioned in the 2010 document as well.
A Mideast conference on nuclear issues would put Israel and Iran, which has called for the destruction of the Jewish state, at the same table. But Abdelaziz told reporters the two countries already sat down at the same table at a meeting in Cairo last December.
“So there is nothing that could prevent any two adversaries to sit at the table and negotiate, and we hope that this is the spirit that everybody is going to be doing,” he said.
Iran had loomed as a potential spoiler that would block consensus at this conference, and Iran and Syria dissented loudly on various points in the final hours, but no objections were raised in the concluding session.
Facing possible new U.N. sanctions because of its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and enter negotiations on its nuclear program, the Iranians had sought to turn the spotlight instead on the big nuclear powers, demanding the final document call for speedier disarmament moves.
Iran’s chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh lamented that the deadline of 2025 sought by NAM for complete disarmament was not included in the final document. Nonetheless, Soltanieh called “the limited measures” in the agreement “a step forward.”
While Israel was named, the final document did not single Iran out as a member nation that has been found to be in noncompliance with U.N. nuclear safeguards agreements.
Jones, the U.S. National Security Adviser, said the failure of the resolution to mention Iran, “which poses the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the region and to the integrity of the NPT, is also deplorable.” Earlier, Tauscher had also criticized Iran for doing “nothing to enhance the international community’s confidence in it by its performance in this review conference.”
Iran’s Soltanieh said the Americans should “think twice” before making such statements. “This was not the right reaction to a positive response, positive measure by our delegation joining the consensus,” he said.
According to the final document, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Mideast resolution — the U.S., Russia and Britain — will now appoint a “facilitator” to conduct consultations in preparation for the 2012 conference.
Jones said the United States “will insist that the conference operate only by consensus by the regional countries” and that any further discussions or actions also be decided on this basis.
Britain’s chief negotiator, Ambassador John Duncan, said Friday’s decision is the start of a process and dialogue on a WMD-free zone in the Mideast.
“So it would be surprising if Israel was able to agree today to come to the proposed conference before that dialogue has taken place,” he said. “But the clear goal of this decision is to have all the countries of the region involved.”
Under the 1970 nonproliferation treaty, nations without nuclear weapons committed not to acquire them; those with them committed to move toward their elimination; and all endorsed everyone’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy.
The last NPT conference, in 2005, failed to adopt a consensus declaration. In sharp contrast, a final declaration was not only adopted this year but for the first time it laid out complex action plans for all three of the treaty’s “pillars” — nonproliferation, disarmament and peaceful nuclear energy.
Sorry, I don't have time to explain the truth behind all this,
but I will remind readers that it's tintin and cori and co. who
have been been running from this topic (that I featured in my
opening pieces in threads on this site and others), well worse
than running from it, 'they' verbally and LITERALLY ATTACKED ME
for my continued posting on KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING HOW to "READ"
WHO and WHERE THE REAL POWER BASES ARE behind all this...