Australians once feared the health impacts of nuclear. Now nobody's talking about it
In 1982, Helen Caldicott, one of Australia's most prominent anti-nuclear campaigners, spent an hour with Ronald Reagan at the White House, warning the then-president about the dangers of nuclear.
'I came out of that saying I thought, because I'm a physician, that he had impending Alzheimer's,' Caldicott, now 86, says. 'Which he did.'
Caldicott fears Australia's memory is also faltering.
From her home in regional NSW, Caldicott says people have forgotten that period where anti-nuclear activism was a key cause of the left and nuclear safety fears ran high.
As Australians prepare to cast a vote in an election which could have huge implications for the country's energy future, nuclear proponents dismiss Caldicott's fears as outdated.
But they are still lurking in the debate as an unspoken question over the Coalition's policy to build seven nuclear plants nationally to offset the decline of coal power and help Australia reach net zero emissions by 2050.
When asked if nuclear energy production was a safety risk to Australians in April, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dodged the question and said the main reason for the concern was 'about the economy'.
His government, in lockstep with the Coalition, is investing billions in a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact.
At the final leaders' debate on April 27, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the government's endorsement of AUKUS proved nuclear power was not dangerous.
'Who in his or her right mind would sign up to a nuclear submarine and put our sailors onto the submarine thinking that there was a concern about safety?' he said on Channel Seven.
But in recent weeks, Dutton has avoided drawing attention to his nuclear policy, and Labor has attacked him over not visiting the sites of the Coalition's proposed reactors.
The issue was dragged onto centre stage this week as anti-nuclear protesters disrupted a Dutton campaign event and press conference – and their theatrics largely played on the fears people have around nuclear safety.
If Dutton were to form government, safety could come to the fore again because it would need to overturn the federal ban on nuclear energy, implemented in 1999 by John Howard in a deal with the Greens.
Despite the dangers being dismissed by Labor and the Coalition, Caldicott remains concerned about nuclear waste being improperly stored in Australia and contaminating water supplies – or even a Chernobyl-like reactor meltdown.
'It's not being discussed at all, which is amazing to me', Caldicott says. 'People are very ignorant.'
Kirsty Baybron, a nuclear law expert and adjunct professor at the University of Adelaide, says those in Caldicott's camp have misconceptions of the dangers.
'All energy sources ... have some sort of risks,' says Baybron, arguing these dangers can be mitigated. Nuclear waste can be stored underground, and Australia's low frequency of earthquakes means an accident like that seen at Fukushima in 2011 couldn't happen.
'So the one thing the nuclear industry does really, really, really well, is it learns from all of its mistakes,' Baybron says.
Fears regarding nuclear radiation are also overblown, she says. Last year, Baybron travelled to a nuclear waste facility, a nuclear lab, a power plant and an armed nuclear submarine while pregnant.
'I'd build a nuclear waste facility on my property if I could. It would make me a lot of money,' says Baybron, who lives on 25 acres in the Adelaide Hills.
The World Nuclear Association reports that the US navy's nuclear fleet has never experienced an accident in its 50-year history. The Lucas Heights nuclear medical facility in Sydney's south has operated effectively for decades and has recorded only minor safety breaches.
Emeritus professor of the Australian National University Ken Baldwin says nuclear energy is safe, with stringent regulations preventing accidents and underground depositories able to safely store high-level nuclear waste (though the world's first such facility in Finland is not yet operational).
The Coalition has previously said it plans to temporarily store spent fuel on site before moving it to the same location as waste from the AUKUS nuclear submarines will be kept.
'We [Australia] would make sure that we manage both the safety of nuclear power generation and the waste storage in a very responsible manner because we are a well-governed country,' says Baldwin.
Director of Nuclear Innovation Centre at UNSW Edward Obbard says 'nuclear energy is one of the safest ways to generate electricity' and has a death rate far lower than coal, oil, gas and hydropower, based on accidents and pollution.
Obbard says the reactor meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986 'is not relevant to Australia because it occurred in a previous reactor design'. People disproportionately remember the impacts of the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima, he says, when the more significant destruction, and 20,000 deaths, were caused by a 14-metre tsunami and a 9.0-magnitude earthquake.
Loading
Some people fear nuclear because it can 'capture our imagination so terribly', he says.
But UNSW associate professor Mark Disendorf says the fears are valid. He says earthquakes are common in the Hunter Valley – the site of one proposed reactor – and is concerned by a German government study that has shown proximity to a nuclear power plant increased the likelihood of leukemia for children under five.
He says that the argument that Australia's stringent safety regulations and access to modern technology would make it immune to the dangers was 'invalid because Australia has so little experience'.
In a statement, the Australian government's primary authority for radiation protection and nuclear safety says nuclear power plants are designed to be safe and have significantly improved their operations in recent decades, 'but cannot be considered entirely risk-free'.
The regulator also says radiation can be harmful at high exposure levels, so safety limits and protocols are important. Although radiation is prevalent in our everyday environment, 'Australia does not have a large nuclear sector and there is low familiarity with nuclear science in the wider community,' it says.
A generational divide and ideological opposition to renewables are two explanations as to why anti-nuclear sentiment has faded, says social trends researcher and director of research at 89 Degrees East, Rebecca Huntley.
Huntley says younger voters, who are less aware of the damage caused by Chernobyl and Fukushima, tend to be more supportive of nuclear.
Many people now show 'a grudging recognition we need to move away, particularly from coal,' Huntley says. 'And their antipathy to renewable energy, particularly wind, is so intense they think 'well, why aren't we considering this option [nuclear]'.'
But Huntley says her polling indicates some do remain concerned about safety, and 'most of those concerns are framed in terms of catastrophic events like Fukushima or Chernobyl' rather than the safe disposal of nuclear waste.
January 2025 polling conducted exclusively for this masthead by the Resolve Political Monitor shows opinion is broadly split on support for nuclear power. Thirty-one per cent of respondents support nuclear power, 29 per cent opposed, 29 per cent are open to the government investigating it, and 11 per cent are undecided.
When Caldicott casts her vote on Saturday, it will be in protest against the Coalition's nuclear plans. But her motivation will be different than most.
Since her White House conversation decades ago, countries worldwide have made at least a start on building just over 300 nuclear power reactors, according to the World Nuclear Industry Stats Report.
Most people, says Huntley, are thinking about the cost of living rather than nuclear.
'I will also question about whether this next election is going to be about energy policy,' she says. 'But it will have a profound effect on energy policy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Iran's nuclear sites have been 'obliterated'. This is how dangerous that could be
A 13 tonne bomb — yes, you read that right — being dropped on a nuclear site so sensitive it was embedded almost 100 metres inside a mountain. When you put it like that, it's no surprise Sunday's US attacks on Iran put much of the world on edge. US President Donald Trump hailed the mission, which involved stealth bombers launching strikes on three uranium enrichment facilities, as a huge success. The targets at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been "totally obliterated" he said. While devastating consequences are associated with any act of war, words like "nuclear" and "radioactive" can trigger extra concerns. Let's unpack them. The first thing Pete Bryant, from the University of Liverpool, wants you to do, is get high-profile nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima out of your mind. "It's important to distinguish between nuclear power plants and uranium enrichment facilities, as they are fundamentally different in function, design, and risk," he said. The sites targeted in Iran — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — are uranium enrichment facilities, that handle "low-level radioactive material", said Professor Bryant, a leading radiation protection professional and scientist. That's in complete contrast to nuclear power plants like Ukraine's Chernobyl, which was the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster, and Japan's Fukushima, which sustained major damage in a 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Power plants contain things like nuclear reactor cores, spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste, which make them much more dangerous. "Iran's uranium enrichment facilities are not reactors, do not have comparable inventories of radioactive material, and cannot experience similar failures," Professor Bryant said. "So while comparisons are often made due to the use of the term 'nuclear', the facilities involved in the current situation are nothing like Chernobyl or Fukushima in design, function, or risk profile." Just because the Iranian facilities targeted by the US aren't capable of causing a nuclear meltdown, that doesn't mean there aren't dangers. After all, the US used the world's largest non-nuclear bombs in the attack. Professor Bryant said the uranium isotopes found at Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities emitted alpha particles which "are stopped by a few centimetres of air, cannot penetrate skin, and pose a risk only if inhaled or ingested". In other words, these substances pose little radiological risk. But there are chemical concerns. He said the uranium gas used in these facilities formed the toxic substances of Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrofluoric Acid when exposed to air and moisture. The latter is "corrosive and dangerous upon inhalation", Professor Bryant said. "Even in the unlikely event of an internal release, any contamination would remain largely confined within the structure, especially in underground sites like Fordow, which is protected by 80-90 metres of reinforced rock," he said. While not necessarily the case in Iran right now, Timothy Mousseau — an internationally recognised authority on the effects of radiation on natural systems — said the blasts could affect the natural environment. "Large explosions at nuclear enrichment sites or spent fuel storage sites are potentially of very large environmental impacts," Professor Mousseau said. On Sunday, Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency — an international organisation that promotes the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technologies — said Iranian authorities had reported no increase in off-site radiation levels after the US attacks. Given radiation is easy to detect, even at low levels, that announcement will have allayed global concerns about an environmental catastrophe. Although as Professor Mousseau, from the University of South Carolina, pointed out: "Nuclear fuel for bombs and reactors is both radioactive and chemical toxic and their dispersal can have profound environmental impacts for decades, centuries and even millennia given that the half-life of uranium-235, the main active ingredient for nuclear reactors, is over 700 million years, and the half-life of plutonium-239, the main ingredient of an atomic bomb, is more 24,000 years."
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
No backing out now for Labor. Chalmers has set the tone, and the goal, for term two
At base, this is about making the budget add up – people can ask for tax cuts, but only if taxes are raised elsewhere or spending is cut. Mostly, though, Chalmers has, quite properly, reminded us that tax reform is unavoidably a political project. 'Trade-offs' are, traditionally, the very essence of politics: something is gained and something is lost. Crucially, this is a very different type of politics for the Albanese government. Labor's first term was not much about trade-offs. With a couple of exceptions, it was mostly about shepherding change through quietly: making sure that nobody was losing enough that they would complain. Now, it seems, the government will contemplate policies with much more dramatic impacts – impacts everyone will notice. Significant losses will be matched by equally significant gains. The political complexity lies in who bears the losses and who gets the gains. It was a strikingly bold – and potentially historic – moment for Labor. Loading Two weeks ago, the Coalition's finance spokesman, James Paterson, insisted the Coalition was up for talking to the government about tax reform, including reducing taxes and then collecting 'that revenue in less distortionary ways'. That sounded a lot like higher taxes in some areas. But, he also said, the opposition would not help Labor 'increase taxes'. 'But isn't that tax reform?' asked the ABC's David Speers. 'You're gonna have to put something up to cut somewhere else.' Paterson insisted, 'We are not interested in increasing taxes'. You can perhaps, if you squint, make sense of this – it will be up to new opposition leader Sussan Ley, in her own turn at the Press Club this week, to try. The likelihood is that Chalmers will face a version of what Keating faced: support for some bits, but not for the others that make them politically plausible. Chalmers talked a lot about consensus in his speech. Reaching agreement would be 'everyone's responsibility'. It's an important point. It is also a useful point to make at this stage of the process: after all, it is Chalmers' job to push everyone towards agreement by making clear the government shouldn't be expected to do all of this by itself. Loading But what if, in the end, there is not consensus? Or what if consensus forms only around a very limited set of changes? Chalmers declared, 'if we fail it won't be because of a shortage of ideas, options or choices. It won't be a shortage of courage – but a shortage of consensus.' Ultimately, though, if there is not consensus, courage will be required. If you read Chalmers' words as a persuasive tactic, they are fair enough. If, on the other hand, the government thinks it has given itself an alibi, it is kidding itself. The goal has been set. Political embarrassment would not be the only consequence of a retreat on tax reform. Keating's mentions of Medicare and superannuation are reminders that economic reform does not have to be only about tax. Instead, tax changes can take their place within a grander Labor project, alongside other concrete policies, the benefits of which voters more readily grasp. But it is hard to see how that larger Labor project works if tax reform fails.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Don't sit on the fence with this one Albanese: Australia must recommit to US alliance as Middle East tensions mount
Anthony Albanese wasn't the only disappointed global leader left in line for an audience with the President when Donald Trump made an early exit from the G7 summit in Calgary. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that 'many important matters' demanded the President's attention in Washington. Important compared to what? At a moment of global conflict there can be few things more vital than reaffirming the bonds with trusted allies. The contrast with the response to the 9/11 attacks is stark. Within hours of the attacks, John Howard wrote to President George W Bush, affirming Australia's 'resolute solidarity' with the American people. The following day he pledged unconditional support for the US 'in any action that might be taken'. However we choose to judge the course of events that followed, Howard's reaction reflected a clarity of moral purpose that appears to be faltering. Australia knew where it stood: shoulder to shoulder with the United States in defence of the liberal democratic order. The Western alliance has grown uncertain. Under Donald Trump, US commitments have become more transactional. Meanwhile, under Albanese, Australia is hedging like other middle powers, caught between strategic dependence on the U.S. and economic entanglement with China. Pragmatism in diplomacy is unavoidable, but pragmatism should never give way to ambivalence. There is little discussion today in Washington or Canberra about the values, the once underpinned our alliances: liberal democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law. The concept of the civilised West has become so disreputable in some circles leaders hesitate to declare themselves part of it. Deciding which side we are on when the chips are down is nowhere near as simple as it once was. Labor's discomfort with these foundations is not new. While historically loyal to Britain, the party was wary of imperial wars and later divided over the U.S. alliance. Gough Whitlam was openly critical of U.S. foreign policy while drawing closer to Communist China. At a banquet host by Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing in 1973, Whitlam declared that Australia's future lay with nations 'with whom we share a common environment and common interests … With no nation is our new aspiration symbolised more than it is with China'. The trade relationship with China has deepened, growing from almost nothing in 1973 to more than $300 billion in annual two-way trade today. Yet there has been no equivalent meeting of minds on the profound human values that define civilisation. Sky News Australia viewers will be familiar with the case of Australian journalist Cheng Lei who spent almost three years as an innocent detainee in China, an experience she compares to being buried alive. We know that more than a million Uyghurs are suffering a worse fate in discriminatory detention. China boasts of its intention to seize Taiwan by military force if necessary. Nor is subtle about its projection of naval force close to our shores as it seeks to establish dominance across the Pacific and into the Southern Ocean. To put it bluntly, there are strict limits to the common interests we share with China so long as it is led by a Communist regime irredeemably opposed to the human values we cherish. We must enter any dealings with China with our eyes wide open, just as we should with other untrustworthy regimes in Tehran, Moscow and Tehran. There can be no confusion about which nations we can trust, the nations of a civilised frame of mind, governed by the rule of law, with respect for the rights of sovereignty. Israel's conflict with Iran is a case in point. Albanese must look beyond policy disagreements over Gaza and recognise Israel as a fellow liberal democracy under siege by a theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism and seeks its annihilation. When he next meets with the U.S. President, Albanese must speak with conviction. He should reaffirm that, through thick and thin, Australia stands with the United States not out of dependency, but as a partner in defending the free world. He must be clear that, in this new age of strategic competition, our interests align. We do not seek favours—we seek solidarity. To adapt the words of John F. Kennedy: the question is not what America can do for us, but what we can do, again, for the alliance that has underpinned our security for generations. Nick Cater is a senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre
