Australia’s nuclear spin doctors

March 19, 2011
Radiation clean-up workers.
Radiation clean-up workers. Pro-nuclear commentators in Australian have downplayed the crisis even.

How have Australian scientists handled the difficult task of keeping us informed about the unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan?

Only a few Australian scientists have featured repeatedly in the media. The most prominent have been Professor Aidan Byrne from the Australian National University, RMIT Chancellor Dr Ziggy Switkowski and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide.

A clear pattern is evident — those with the greatest ideological attachment to nuclear power have provided the most inaccurate commentary.

The best of the bunch has been Byrne. He has presented the facts as he understands them and has willingly acknowledged major information gaps.

Switkowski has been gently spinning the issue, repeatedly reassuring us that lessons will be learned and improvements made. However, history shows that nuclear lessons are not properly learned.

The OECD's NEA notes that “lessons may be learned but too often they are subsequently forgotten, or they are learned but by the wrong people, or they are learned but not acted upon”.

The NEA says the pattern of the same type of accident recurring time and time again at different nuclear plants needs to be “much improved”.

The situation in Japan illustrates the point — it has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that greater protection against seismic risks is necessary. But the nuclear utilities haven't wanted to spend the money, and the Japanese nuclear regulator and the government haven't forced the utilities to act.

Brook is a strident nuclear power advocate and host of the Brave New Climate website, which received more than one million hits in the first week after the crisis.

Brook has egg on his face. Make that an omelette. He has maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation is under control and that there is no reason for concern.

His message remained unchanged: even as it was revealed that efforts to cool the nuclear reactor cores were meeting with mixed success; even as deliberate and uncontrolled radiation releases occurred; even as explosions occurred; even as 200,000 people were evacuated; even as a fire led to spent nuclear fuel releasing radiation directly to the environment; and even as radiation monitors detected alarming jumps in radioactivity near the reactors and low levels of radiation as far away as Tokyo.

On March 12, the day after the earthquake and tsunami, Brook came out swinging, insisting: “There is no credible risk of a serious accident.”

That afternoon, after the first explosion at Fukushima, Brook made numerous assertions, most of which turned out to be wrong: "The risk of meltdown is extremely small, and the death toll from any such accident, even if it occurred, will be zero.

“There will be no breach of containment and no release of radioactivity beyond, at the very most, some venting of mildly radioactive steam to relieve pressure.

“Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be.

“The only reactor that has a small probability of being ‘finished’ is unit 1. And I doubt that, but it may be offline for a year or more."

On the night of March 12, Brook said: “When the dust settles, people will realise how well the Japanese reactors — even the 40-year-old one — stood up to this incredibly energetic earthquake event.”

The dust is finally settling and it seems likely that four reactors will be write-offs.

On March 13, Brook said of the unfolding disaster: “I don't see the ramifications of this as damaging at all to nuclear power's prospects.”

Yet within days of the start of the nuclear crisis, Germany, Switzerland and China announced that their nuclear power plans would be reconsidered in light of Fukushima.

The Labor Party and the Coalition in Australia seem to have abandoned their interest in developing nuclear power here.

On March 14, when the second explosion at Fukushima occurred, Brook was still insisting that “the nuclear reactors have come through remarkably well”.

That evening, half a dozen people were banned from posting comments directly on the Brave New Climate website. True, some of their comments were silly and inaccurate, but by those criteria Brook ought to have banned himself.

With a fire at Fukushima spewing radioisotopes directly into the environment, Brook rallied the pro-nuclear lobby, arguing: “Now, more than ever, we must stand up for what we believe is right.”

But cracks were starting to emerge by the evening of March 15. Brook acknowledged an “ongoing crisis situation”, banned another 40-50 “random nobodies” from posting comments directly on his website, and quoted Rudyard Kipling: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken / Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.

One contributor to Brook's website said: “Unfortunately, Prof. Brook has really abdicated a neutral position on this event. His clear support of nuclear power seems to have impacted his critical thinking skills. ... Every time he states something in this crisis is 'impossible', it seems to happen the next day.”

Finally, on March 17, with Brave New Climate web hits over the preceding week approaching one million, came a belated mea culpa.

Brook said on his website: “My initial estimates of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that 'there is no credible risk of a serious accident' has been proven quite wrong as a result.

“It remains to be seen whether my forecast on the possibility of containment breaches and the very low level of danger to the public as a result of this tragic chain of circumstances will be proven correct.”

Yet even as he mea-culparised, Brook continued spinning.

In the same web-post, he uncritically reproduced this from the Nuclear Energy Institute: “Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said earlier today a radiation level of 33 millirem per hour was measured about 20 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant earlier this morning. He said that level does not pose an immediate health risk.”

But that dose equates to almost 3,000 millisieverts a year, compared to the annual allowable limit for members of the public of just one millisievert per year. And keep in mind this is 20 kilometers from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

It is by no means a negligible dose and it seems increasingly likely that collective human exposure to radiation from Fukushima will be significant — a great deal less than exposure from Chernobyl fallout, but significant nonetheless.

Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has been urging people to read the “marvellously sane and cool explanation” of the Fukushima crisis from “our friend Professor Barry Brook”.

Both Bolt and Brook claim that no more than 50 people died from the Chernobyl catastrophe. The scientific estimates of the Chernobyl death toll range from 9,000 to 93,000.

Brook has spread misinformation as far and wide as the Fukushima reactors have spread radiation over the past week. With the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster falling on April 26, he will likely continue spinning.

This sad situation proves yet again that some of the most unscientific, anti-scientific jiggery pokery comes from scientists themselves.

That history can be traced back to the British nuclear bomb tests in Australia, when ideologically-driven scientists peddled whatever nonsense their political masters asked them to about the radiation fallout.

[Jim Green is the national anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia.]


We need nuclear, even despite Japan And Chernobyl, if we have to fight global warming. Global warming is far more serious than any Japan fiasco. You need to get away from your fundamentalist anti-nuke view. It is not helping. It is not green enough anymore. Things have changed.
There is no technology that is totally risk free - even renewables in there modern format are dependant on rare earth metals and other 'mined' resources. However, nuclear energy sucks away investment into our most sustainable technologies, instead diverting it to prop up an inherantly financially environmentally and socially unsustainable technology. Also, having undertaken climate modelling myself as part of my studies, what is very clear to me, is that many people are equating climate modelling with the prediction of future climate which is itself a very dangerous position. Just look at how the nuclear industry have capitalised on peoples fear of climate change to re-brand itself as an environmentally benign technology. Up until the notion of climate change became mainstream, nuclear energy was held up as the ultimate in environmentally catastrophic technology - after all none of your human senses can detect it, it has the ability to render vast tracts of land air & water contaminated as well as causing trans-generational effects that imply you won't need to worry about future generations and climate change, as future generations will be rendered genetically unviable to such an extent that all life will eventually be compromised. Unlike climate change (which we can't predict only model) The effects of nuclear power are well know and well documented. of the children in Belarus only 2% are healthy whilst 96% of children are not. Birth-rates have been greatly affected, the nuclear industry have managed to cover-up many of the scientific studies and reports that have been carried out about Chernobyl. (see the permanent peoples tribunal - What's even more concerning is that humans have a tendency to the normalcy bias (i,e when faced with an unknown un-experienced situation such as a disaster, there is a tendency to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by the situation by thinking that everything is OK) this may go some way to explaining some of the responses to the Fukushima disaster from the government and TEPCO's denial that there is a problem, to the refusal by some to evacuate. In the countries that are still contaminated from Chernobyl, many people in the abscence of adequate information, in the face of poverty and the loss of communities, on top of an inability to see any obvious signs of contamination have moved back to their abandoned homes exposing themselves to the invisible contaminants in the land water there. In America there are over 2,000 outstanding insurance claims relating to the health detriment caused by radioactivity released into the environment by three mile island another incident that the nuke industry have worked their black magic PR spin on. There is a big difference between the kind of effects that kill you outright such as industrial accidents and the kind of toxicity that makes life unviable, and causes the kind of illness and suffering that is unimaginable and long-lived. There are children being born now many with severe mental disturbances as well as autoimmune disorders as well as cancers & birth defects. The dangers of the nuclear industry have not gone away overnight because of climate change, and they cannot and must not be perceived as a lesser evil than climate change, to do this is to succumb to the corporate greenwashing of global governments & capitalist institutions - something I would expect anti captialists and environmentalists (as I consider myself to be) to see right through. Carbon is only a small part of the story of climate change and it's effect on climate change is primarily because of the sheer quantity our activities create. There are numerous other more potent greenhouse gases that play there part some of which also have a connection to our activiites. Methane for example. The Carbon associated with the nuclear industry back end (waste storage) is unquantifiable as we cannot predict the future carbon emmissions of waste storage (heck we cant even guarantee that we can store the waste safely over the timescales we are looking at). The focus on carbon emmissions with nuclear is a red herring - it has not been adequately quantified, energy use has been the crude indicator of Carbon associated with uranaium extraction not the embodied energy of it, or the transport of the resource and processing of it. Sulphur hexaflouride, a chemical used in the enrichment process has one of the most potent greenhouse effects going, it probably is easier to quantify than carbon (as they have to buy it in) and yet it does not feature as part of the dialogue about the greenhouse gas footprint of the nuclear industry. It is a travesty that we have allowed these corporate industries set the agenda with respect to climate change. Even though we know that our activities are having an impact on the climate. There is still a huge amount that we do not know about climate change whether natural or anthropogenic. One form of pollution is not ever going to be the solution to another. The mindset thast creates the problem is not going to be the mindset that resolves it. If the best that we can do is turn to an inherantly dangerous, military technolgy born out of mankinds darkest desires then there really isn't much hope for us is there? Wake up and smell the coffee people, your being had over by the corporate greenwash, these people are laughing at how easy it's been to persuade you all - just one or two celebs and a media campaign and you're persuaded. Get educated, get informed. Nuclear energy will only exacerbate the environmental and social problems of the 21st century, not solve them.
You must read Ban Ky Moon's declaration in Tchernobyl a few days ago.
The author of "Face the facts" is right to be concerned about global warming; the author of "Facing the facts," equally right to be concerned about the nuclear energy. Luckily, we don't have to choose either the devil, or the deep blue sea. We can meet our stationary energy needs with a combination of efficiency measures, fuel switching and renewables, as Beyond Zero Emissions have demonstrated with their Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan. That's clearly not all there is to restoring a safe climate - there are clearly other sources of carbon dioxide than energy production, and other greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. But it is urgent that we shift away from burning fossil fuels for power, and imperative to reject nuclear as part of the new mix. The movements for a safe climate and against the uranium mining/nuclear power/nuclear weapons/nuclear waste cycle are natural allies (and mobilise many of the same people); we don't need to snipe at each other, but to support each other. The nuclear and fossil fuel industries are powerful adversaries, but in the words of David Rovics, "what choice do we really have but to rise up and see them fall?" Kamala Emanuel

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.