Many Traditional Owners strongly oppose this plan and are calling on people around Australia to help them bury the radioactive waste dump proposal.

More information, photos and audio can be found at www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com
www.dumpthedump.org.au

For information on why a Northern Territory waste dump is not needed for continuation if nuclear medicine see: http://vimeo.com/29971907

The accident of Fukushima [Mar.11,2011], Japan, as well as the former accident of Kashiwazaki (Niigata)　[July 16,2007], Japan, caused by earthquakes shows the total incompatibility of nuclear energy plant in the area where the earthquake and/or tsunami are reachable.

Thus, we shall ban the operation of nuclear power plant in such area immediately, as the first step of total prohibition of nuclear power plants in this planet.

In Japanese:
日本全土、中国全土、台湾、朝鮮半島全部、ルーマニア、スペイン、米国（特にカリフォルニア）などには、地震発生の危険性が非常に高いにもかかわらず、たくさんの原発があります。

2011年3月11日の福島第一原発事故、加えて、2007年7月16日の柏崎原発事故は、地震や津波の発生が少しでも予想される地域での原発稼働は安全性が確保できないことをはっきりと示しました。

世界から原発を撤廃する第一歩として、こうした災害に襲われる可能性のある地域での原発の建設、稼働をいますぐやめてもらいましょう。

署名の内容：
IAEA（国際原子力機関）へ
地震・津波の到達可能性のある地域での原発建設および稼働を禁止する勧告を出してください。

署名手順ガイド・感想ノート（日本語）：　http://fromkobewithlove.blogspot.com/

The report of the independent investigation commission set up by the Japanese Diet published in July 2012 unequivocally states that the accident was man-made; TEPCO did not take appropriate measures against the potential risks of tsunami already identified; and the collusion of the government oversight agencies with the nuclear power industry compromised safety. [for the report, go to
http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/en/report/index.html]

In June 2012, a group of over 1,300 people who lived in Fukushima at that time filed criminal charges against 33 individuals, which include former TEPCO executives, government officials in charge of nuclear safety in Japan, and the current Radiation Health Risk Management Adviser appointed by Fukushima Prefecture. The charges were filed with the Fukushima District Prosecutor's Office on the grounds of professional negligence resulting in death and injury, and environmental pollution offense.

The written statements submitted by each plaintiff tell stories of agony of how their daily lives were suddenly uprooted and their human rights violated. No government assistance has been provided for the evacuation of children, and most have been left in dangerously contaminated areas in Fukushima. The impact of radiation exposure on their health is becoming more evident, while the government continues to deny this grim reality.

The second group of an additional 10,000 plaintiffs from the rest of Japan are expected to join this case on November 15, 2012. Now we need to put pressure on the Fukushima District Prosecutor's Office, so that it will not just go through motions, but conduct a thorough investigation that would result in the actual prosecution of the individuals charged. This is only the first step, and a critical one.

In the 1990’s, the nuclear waste from Lucas Heights was sent to France for re-processing. Under contracts signed by the Australian Government in the 90’s, Australia is obliged to take back its waste, from France and the UK by the end of 2015. Approximately 13.2 cubic metres of intermediate nuclear waste will be stored in a $30 million purpose-built facility at Lucas Heights for a maximum of 5 years.

This decision of such importance has managed to fall under the radar and as far away from the public eye as possible.

According to David Sweeny of The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), “just
because the waste has been reprocessed, doesn’t mean it is safe.” He is quoted as saying that it is “a contaminated cocktail of various radioactive elements and isotopes and some of these last for many thousands of years and pose a very significant radiology hazard and human health hazard.”

Sydney residents do not feel safe with this radioactive waste being stored within close proximity to their homes. It appears to be a possible terrorist target or a national disaster waiting to happen.

Local residents are unaware as to what was planned for Lucas Heights and the majority have no idea what is going on. Once informed there response is "how do we go about stopping this and what can I do to help". This does not appear to be a well informed community in favor of Lucas Heights being used as a nuclear waste storage facility.

Another issue is how temporary is temporary? The Federal Government has had 30 years to decide where to store this radioactive waste and to date the best
they can come up with is a five year plan for it to be stored at Lucas Heights. ANSTO insists that the facility will only provide “interim” storage for the waste however this is extremely debatable.

It appears that the Federal Government is applying a quick fix solution to an extremely important national issue. To date they have been unable to establish the
location of where the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility will be, so who’s to say they will in 7 years time.

Why put it in a densely populated area like Lucas Heights which is within a 30 km radius of Sydney’s CBD, just because it is the easiest and cheapest solution for the interim. Why aren’t the Government seeking a viable long term solution now, they still have until the end of 2015. Australia is one of the world’s most geologically stable continents with many sparsely populated locations that would be perfect sites for the storage of radioactive waste.

The Australian Government has a responsibility to the next generation to find a viable solution now.

(Reuters) - Highly radioactive water seeping into the ocean from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is creating an "emergency" that the operator is struggling to contain, an official from the country's nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force, told Reuters.

Countermeasures planned by Tokyo Electric Power Co are only a temporary solution, he said.

Tepco's "sense of crisis is weak," Kinjo said. "This is why you can't just leave it up to Tepco alone" to grapple with the ongoing disaster.

"Right now, we have an emergency," he said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-japan-fukushima-panel-idUSBRE97408V20130805

Instead of taking the obvious choice, like wind or solar power, the government has gone to nuclear power.

Nuclear power is dirty and dangerous. If something went wrong, the results would be catastrophic. On top of all that, NO scientist in the WORLD has discovered a safe way to get rid of nuclear waste.
Wind and solar power are more environmentally friendly, and more effective.

The authoritarian president-for-life Nursultan Nazarbayev has supported this idea despite the continuous protest of the people of Kazakhstan.

We need the support of the people of the world to stop the building of the Bank of Nuclear Fuel/Wastes.

There has been much discussion about this topic since Elena Zabolotnogo provided graphic evidence of the results of the disaster. Please sign the petition which calls for more research and more definitive findings at the highest level.

See http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/journal/volume4.html

-------------------------------------------------------

Whereas,

Serious claims about the Chornobyl nuclear disaster have been made by Elena Zabolotnogo, daughter of a nuclear physicist working in the "dead zone"; and whereas these claims include the following:

(1) radiation levels in Kiev are between 20-30% higher than the average American or Russian city;

(2) radiation will stay in the Chernobyl area for the next 48,000 years, and humans may not repopulate the area for 600 years - give or take three centuries;

(3) 3,500 people still live in the exclusion zone of the meltdown disaster;

(4) 70% of the Chernobyl radiation infected Belorusian territory and entire villages are unaccounted for;

(5) No one knows - not even approximately, the casualties of the disaster. The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many unofficial sources put the toll over 400,000.

(6) Grotesque mutations of wildlife have been reported in the area;

AND whereas;

(7) poor records and corruption have prevented the accurate registration of the workers who helped put out the fire and entomb the smouldering nuclear plant in 1986;

(8) Seven million people in the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are estimated to suffer phyical or psychological effects from the radiation;

(9) More than 2.32 million people have been hospitalised in Ukraine as of early 2004 with illnesses blamed on the disaster, including thyroid and blood cancer.

This, the Court declared, was because the consultation breached the Government’s duty to hold a full and effective public consultation under the Aarhus Convention 2003. The Court described the consultation exercise as one which was “very seriously flawed”, “manifestly inadequate”, “seriously misleading” and “wholly insufficient to enable [respondents] to make ‘an intelligent response’”. These enormous failings were held by the Court to have frustrated the public’s legitimate expectation to participate fully and effectively in a decision with potentially very serious environmental and safety implications.

Following this ruling, which it did not contest, the Government decided to hold a new consultation in 2007. However, it failed once again to consult the public fully and effectively.

Instead, some one thousand persons were offered questionnaires on UK civil nuclear power replacement which many recipients considered “not [to be] of appropriate quality”. Among the criticisms made of the exercise were that “positive messages” for nuclear power “were presented as statements of fact” and respondents “were not able to answer the questions in a way that reflected the view they wanted to express” but “were led towards a particular answer” (see ‘Harrison Grant questions nuclear consultation for Greenpeace’, The Lawyer, 21 September 2007 and ‘Scientists take on Brown over nuclear plan’, The Guardian, 4 January 2008).

Following the exercise, a formal complaint was submitted to the UK polling regulator (the Market Research Standards Council).

We therefore petition the Attorney-General to consider whether the Government’s decision in early 2008 to ‘go ahead’ with the replacement of civil nuclear power stations, having assumed that the 2007 constitution has produced a ‘public mandate’ for new build (Guardian, op cit.) may constitute contempt of court.*

If she considers that the Government should be held in contempt, then we petition the Attorney-General to take appropriate subsequent legal action.

*Where contempt includes (a) failure to obey superior courts of record which prescribe certain conduct on one party to a civil action – including the executive since for it to assume itself immune to contempt of court would, as Templeman LJ ruled, be for it “to obey the law as a matter of grace not of necessity” (M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377) – and (b) from which it is no defence to claim that what would otherwise constitute contempt of court was committed in the discharge or purported discharge of official duties (M v Home Office; R v City of London Magistrates’ Court, ex p Green [1997] 3 All ER 551))

核電威脅生命，不單是一代人的生命，也不單是殘暴地特別傷害胎兒與孩童，更影響遠遠近近的人與萬種生物的基因，病殘痛苦以至最終的滅種由是而起。

輻射對生命的危害絕不是專家所說的輕微，更完全不能與照X光或CT
檢查相比——核電廠平常「合法排放」的輻射，與意外發生時洩漏的輻射，長久地、不停地、進入體內反覆地、並會集中地留在某些器官中，造成傷害及基因變異。

核電科技57年來都不能處理核廢料問題，只是將廢料不斷堆積在廠房內，令危險性以千百倍遞增；部份堆埋在原住民生活地區(如澳洲、台灣的情況)，極盡種族滅絕之不義；還有部份用來再濃縮為鈈燃料棒，供製造核武之用，及供核電廠重新使用。鈈是全球最毒的物質。

人類完全不需要核電，那是核軍事-工業集團與政權操控下的大生意。在美、英、法、俄、日本、中國及第三世界情況都是如此。

我們要向生命負責，要阻止這些死亡力量，香港人、中國人要與全世界國家的反核力量連結，突破消息封鎖，不再聽從偽專家為其主子散播的天方大話。我們要起來保護自己、保護生命、喝停所有核電廠的運作與興建，永遠不要核電、核武﹗

基於此，我們有五項向日本及各核電買賣國政府、及不負責任的國際機構(如世衛)作出的要求；也對計劃到2030年共有240台核反應堆(其中32台在廣東)的中國政府，及投資在一些廣東核電廠的香港企業「中電」提出抗議與要求。