Pangea: An Aid to Nuclear Disarmament?

Pangea Resources, a US company of which British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. is a significant shareholder, is proposing to use Australia as the site for a high level international nuclear waste dump. Pangea has been arguing that the proposal facilitates nuclear disarmament and Australia’s national security.

Pangea argues that its proposal for an international nuclear waste dump in Australia offers a "global" solution to the nuclear waste problem. More recently, Pangea has been focussing on how an international waste dump will aid nuclear disarmament, as it may take waste from dismantled nuclear weapons. Yet ironically Pangea will not tie its proposal to any political commitments to phase out nuclear power or eliminate nuclear weapons.

Documentation produced for Pangea argues that an international nuclear waste dump located in Australia will enhance global security and further Australia’s regional security. Specifically it is suggested that the Pangea proposal will:

• support international efforts to reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and further the objective of nuclear disarmament;
• strengthen the alliance with the US;
• protect the global environment;
• contain terrorism and nuclear smuggling; and
• support the United Nations.

To examine these claims:

Reducing proliferation – NO

The claim that an international waste dump will reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and help nuclear disarmament is very deceptive because it implies that the absence of a good solution to nuclear waste is a barrier to nuclear disarmament. This is not the case. The barriers to nuclear disarmament are political.

The reality is that the nuclear weapon states have decided that they want to hang on to their weapons. It has nothing to do with the waste problem.

The reality is also that the Australian government can play a pivotal role in nuclear disarmament any time it likes; it does not need an international nuclear waste dump to do so.

Building the alliance with the US – NO

The idea that we should become the nuclear dump of the world in the hope that our friends will like us more suggests that perhaps the benefits of the friendship are a little one-sided.

Protecting the global environment – NO

It does not stop the production of the problem, it only puts it in one place. There is an imperative that existing nuclear wastes be stored appropriately but an underground dump could very well lead to an out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude which, given the toxicity and long lives of radioactive materials, could result in far greater threats to the environment in the longer term than above ground monitored storage.

Containing terrorism – NO

There is no doubt that the availability of plutonium poses a significant risk in terms of terrorism and proliferation. However, there are far more acceptable ways to deal with this risk than by transporting this material over the sea and land to a different site.

The amount of plutonium needed to produce a nuclear weapon is very small. The bomb that destroyed Nagasaki had about six kilograms of plutonium. To suggest that providing a nuclear waste dump is going to stop the diversion of all quantities as small as six kilograms of plutonium is clearly absurd.

Supporting the UN – NO

The proposal does not have United Nations (UN) endorsement. The UN would be better strengthened if the nuclear weapons states took heed of the majority of the world’s nations who have called for the speedy and total elimination of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The UN should be involved in governing mechanisms to deal with nuclear waste but solutions will only be workable in the context of legally binding agreements between the world’s nations — not short term proposals put forth by private companies with a profit imperative.

No nukes is the solution. The document prepared for Pangea states "in summary, the radioactive detritus of nearly five decades of using nuclear energy for both civilian and military purposes has created a serious and worsening security issue for the international community." This has been the message of the anti-nuclear movement for many years.

The solution, however, does not lie in an out-of-sight, out-of-mind proposal as suggested by Pangea. The solution lies in agreeing to abolish nuclear weapons and phasing out nuclear power. Only then will we be in a position to address the hard issues of how we manage the wastes created by the nuclear industry.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008