This entry was posted
on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pm and is filed under Anti-Nuclear.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Very thought provoking. My view is that with the advancements in video on-line. That placing this doco in full-length version on video hosting sites such as Current TV, Youtube and others, etc should be a major priority. International support and pressure on the government is likely to have more of an impact on their decisions than Australians on their own.
All that Glitters is Not Gold is good! Great to have a short version to get out there.
Thinking of you all at Roxby - i”m glad there is a team there to be strong and supportive!
Amazing how the nuclear issue has dropped out of the agenda …… even the Coaltion knows its not popular to be proposing 25 nuclear power stations around the country.
On Nov. 2nd, the very influential US National Adacemy of Sciences sev erely criticised George Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. They said it would not be ablae to address the vexed issue of nuclear waste disposal and found “no economic justification: for pursuing the techology on a commercial scale. they said it was very risky, and could be the biggest technological nightmare in United States history.
This is the prgramme which John Howard signed up to, in the wake of Bush’s visit here for APEC…… no publicity about it, but a government DAFT official signed on the dotted line in Vienna, Austria, committing Australia to being one of the “favoured” countries to promote nuclear technology (an possibly to end up with the world’s nuclear waste - although of course, that bit is not written in to the agreement).
This is a desperate bid by the world’s nuclear baron to secure their place at the intenational global warming resuce table, before George Bush leaves office. And our country is now tied right into it.
What is the ALP saying about this? good question! Ask them. They are happy to expand the uranium mining industry, but not to have nuclear power stations all over Australia. It’s a very illogical position.
Thanks David and team for this informative short, and for entering the belly of the beast- Roxby Downs, to show your feature film. All strength and wisdom to you, the beings of the future will rejoice. love ros
The Greens winning the balance of power in the Senate can hopefully stop nuclear power stations being built but won’t be able to stop the Roxby expansion I don’t think. We’ll need a huge community campaign and direct action to stop this madness. And we need to think now about how to try to get this on the election campaign agenda. I’ll contact the Greens. Brilliant clip by the way - thankyou.
THANKS! The short is a great tool and I want to send it all around Alice Springs (for starters). I watched your films ‘Hard Rain’ and ‘Blowing in the Wind’ recently and thinking about how to bring to much wider attention… Before sending this on, i noticed a couple of links don’t have any specific content. The ‘press release’ is great ( go Helen!), but the ‘ What you can do’ and the ‘Background Briefing’ revert to Frontline index. Is more coming online? love ruth
I’m fortunate to have my mum forwarding these things on to me so I’m exposed (excuse the pun) to this kind of much needed (yet sadly hard to come by) journalism. As a 20 year old I feel I should be the most concerned for the future of our environment, as should my mates, so I’ve forwarded it on to them all. Keep up the good work Mr Bradbury, you’re a top man.
Great to see such an informative video on an immensely important issue. I hope it gets the recognition and support it deserves and in the end we can make a difference. Thank you. You have my support and I wish you all the best in the future.
I so much wish I was with you. Are you recording the journey someway?
And, are you going to raise the Walk Against Warming flag on Sunday? Everyone walking all over Australia at all those events is with you heart and soul.
Peace now, for a green planet!
Love life… love you too.
Blessings on your heart and your determination to bring these overwhelmingly important facts to the attention of a broader audience.
Aside from the very strong warnings coming from my own inner guideance, I had a Russian girlfriend who went back to Chenoble some
10 years or more after the power plant breakdown there, and the stories she had to tell of a myriad of health problems plaguing residents from many miles around was distressing in the extreme. And that, of course, is just the beginning. I wish you the strength and the means to bring your work to the widest possible stage.
A big thank you to the producers of this informative (and scary) video clip. Being a former resident of Adelaide it was fairly stressful viewing. As a child growing up there, the only thing to fear from the northerly winds in summer was the heat. I’m just grateful I don’t have any children growing up there.
Maybe we should dismantle Parliament House and rebuild it at Roxby? I wonder how many of our beloved “pollies” would be keen to run the country from there.
Every stage of the nuclear cycle poses enormous risks to our people and our environment. Uranium mining is not only dangerous in releasing radioactivity at the mine site, but also in waste, in radiation leakage and in weapons proliferation.
We have protested today outside Lucas Heights nuclear facility in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire. The new Lucas Heights OPAL reactor is shut down indefinately due to engineering faults.
Delegates from an International Atomic Energy Agency conference visited the site in what must have been a major embarrassment to the Government and a setback to the credibility of ANSTO and Ziggy Switkowski, the former hand picked head of the PM’s pro-nuclear review and advocate of 25 nuclear reactors for Australia by 2050.
Australians can have little confidence in the plan for 25 nuclear reactors across the country when ANSTO can’t deliver on one small nuclear research reactor.
The Greens would permanently close the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor and redirect the cost savings of $140 million a year from closing the reactor to renewed efforts by Australia for international nuclear disarmament and to fund a clean up of the legacy of radiation created by the industry in Australia.
Take out 3rd party insurance to spare us from a nuclear future by voting 1 Green on November 24.
regards
Jamie Paterson
Greens candidate for Hughes
Man-made radiation affects the whole Earth and everything in it! Everyone! The Roy
Process is photon transmutation of nuclear waste to zero radioactivity. Includes
plutonium 239, the element for atom bombs. It works by eliminating the excess
neutrons in the nucleus of the atom, causing rapid decay and heat which can make
electricity.
The Roy Process is a private invention by Dr. Roy and I still follow his death bed
instructions. It was invented after the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979
during the summer break from A.S.U. and was an Associated Press news story and
went world wide. A large company saw the Patent Application under non-disclosure
agreements and said the Roy Process was “entirely feasible”.
Then President Reagan signed “The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act” which made
(geologic isolation) burial of nuclear waste, new federal policy! This limited
science to burial which they wanted, putting viable alternatives in limbo.
A professor friend says things happen or not happen for reasons. Clearly there is
far more money in mischief, in killing people, in a toxic regime…than the reverse!
Guest Article: Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful
Friday, 29 August 2003, 12:36 pm
Opinion: Guest Opinion
A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful
By Dennis F. Nester,
special for NuclearNo.com,
Originally published 20 June 2003
- Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements
- There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process
It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology.
Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below).
Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? Maybe! One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.
Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.
In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.
What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.
How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.
It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.
To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.
The Roy Process could be developed in three distinct phases, according to Roy. Phase I consists of a theoretical feasibility study of the process to obtain needed parameters for the construction of a prototype machine. Phase II will involve the construction of a prototype machine and supporting facilities for demonstrating the process. Phase Ill will consist of the construction of large scale commercial plants based on the data obtained from Phase II.
Cost estimates for Phase I and II are in the neighborhood of $10 million. For Phase Ill, Roy estimates a cost of $70 million. Says Roy, `It will be interesting to do a cost analysis of eliminating nuclear waste by using my process and by burying it for 240,000 years - ten half-lives of plutonium - under strict scientific control. There is also an ethical question: can we really burden the thousands of generations yet to come with problems which we have created? There is no God among human beings who can guarantee how the geological structure of waste burial regions will change even after ten thousand years, not to mention 240,000 years.”
If you are interested in finding out more about this process, please contact Dennis Nester, Roy`s agent, whose address is listed below.
A final note
To those who say that a process for transforming nuclear wastes is an invitation to keep making them, I ask, when we find a cure for cancer, shall we say it`s okay to continue to eat, drink and breathe carcinogens?
“There is no way one can change nuclear structure other than by nuclear reaction. Burial of nuclear waste is not a solution.” Radha Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus
“Do not be surprised if you learn that the nuclear industry makes billions of dollars by being a part of government`s policy of burial of nuclear wastes. It is not in their financial interest to try any other process. They are not idealists. Radha R. Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus
The below includes the Patent application claim…..describing other uses for the Roy Process transmutation method
Dennis F. Nester 4510 E. Willow Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85032 USA (602) 494-9361 theroyprocess@cox.net
————————————–
http://tinyurl.com/28bq4e [San Francisco Bayview]
From Hiroshima to Iraq, 61 years of uranium wars: A suicidal, genocidal, omnicidal course
By Leuren Moret
Tuesday, 26 December 2006
I just wanted to enquire why you did not include what precautions the mining companies take to ensure that no nuclear materials are released. It costs the mining companies millions of dollars to ensure the mines are safe from any nuclear particles being released into the atmosphere or water supply.
Do you really think the government would allow the mines to continue if it was putting any people at risk as they do not want Australian’s sick as that would cost them money in the health care systems. I think this was a very one sided video and you should have at least mentioned the fact that what you were saying was a possibility would only happen if the mining companies broke all regulations (which would result in them being shut down and losing billions of dollars) and the chances of this happening were like 100 billion to one.
Have you actually done any research into the precautions the mining companies take to make sure no one gets hurt? If not maybe you should look into this. If so then why not mention it in your piece?
Come on, are you people really so gullible? Are you people so easy led by miss information? This is a joke, and it makes me sick that people spread this rubbish as fact.
It appears this stems from the Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 - since when were our parliamentarians empowered to dismiss existing legislation to protect the environment and our health.
Parnell and Nick Xenophon are sure active on this but perhaps they need a few more Australians to wake up to the magnitude of the issue.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Thank you for all your wonderful work
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 am
Very thought provoking. My view is that with the advancements in video on-line. That placing this doco in full-length version on video hosting sites such as Current TV, Youtube and others, etc should be a major priority. International support and pressure on the government is likely to have more of an impact on their decisions than Australians on their own.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:46 am
All that Glitters is Not Gold is good! Great to have a short version to get out there.
Thinking of you all at Roxby - i”m glad there is a team there to be strong and supportive!
Amazing how the nuclear issue has dropped out of the agenda …… even the Coaltion knows its not popular to be proposing 25 nuclear power stations around the country.
On Nov. 2nd, the very influential US National Adacemy of Sciences sev erely criticised George Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. They said it would not be ablae to address the vexed issue of nuclear waste disposal and found “no economic justification: for pursuing the techology on a commercial scale. they said it was very risky, and could be the biggest technological nightmare in United States history.
This is the prgramme which John Howard signed up to, in the wake of Bush’s visit here for APEC…… no publicity about it, but a government DAFT official signed on the dotted line in Vienna, Austria, committing Australia to being one of the “favoured” countries to promote nuclear technology (an possibly to end up with the world’s nuclear waste - although of course, that bit is not written in to the agreement).
This is a desperate bid by the world’s nuclear baron to secure their place at the intenational global warming resuce table, before George Bush leaves office. And our country is now tied right into it.
What is the ALP saying about this? good question! Ask them. They are happy to expand the uranium mining industry, but not to have nuclear power stations all over Australia. It’s a very illogical position.
Check www.votenuclearfree.net
for a scorecard and lots more good info.
best wishes to all working for putting a stop to the failed nuclear industry.
Jo Vallentine.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Thanks David and team for this informative short, and for entering the belly of the beast- Roxby Downs, to show your feature film. All strength and wisdom to you, the beings of the future will rejoice. love ros
November 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
The Greens winning the balance of power in the Senate can hopefully stop nuclear power stations being built but won’t be able to stop the Roxby expansion I don’t think. We’ll need a huge community campaign and direct action to stop this madness. And we need to think now about how to try to get this on the election campaign agenda. I’ll contact the Greens. Brilliant clip by the way - thankyou.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
THANKS! The short is a great tool and I want to send it all around Alice Springs (for starters). I watched your films ‘Hard Rain’ and ‘Blowing in the Wind’ recently and thinking about how to bring to much wider attention… Before sending this on, i noticed a couple of links don’t have any specific content. The ‘press release’ is great ( go Helen!), but the ‘ What you can do’ and the ‘Background Briefing’ revert to Frontline index. Is more coming online? love ruth
November 6th, 2007 at 1:26 am
should be working now!
November 7th, 2007 at 7:03 am
I’m fortunate to have my mum forwarding these things on to me so I’m exposed (excuse the pun) to this kind of much needed (yet sadly hard to come by) journalism. As a 20 year old I feel I should be the most concerned for the future of our environment, as should my mates, so I’ve forwarded it on to them all. Keep up the good work Mr Bradbury, you’re a top man.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Great to see such an informative video on an immensely important issue. I hope it gets the recognition and support it deserves and in the end we can make a difference. Thank you. You have my support and I wish you all the best in the future.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Great work David. Thanks, we should be able to include it at www.VoteNuclearFree.net
www.myspace.com/votenuclearfree
November 8th, 2007 at 1:13 am
I so much wish I was with you. Are you recording the journey someway?
And, are you going to raise the Walk Against Warming flag on Sunday? Everyone walking all over Australia at all those events is with you heart and soul.
Peace now, for a green planet!
Love life… love you too.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:59 am
Blessings on your heart and your determination to bring these overwhelmingly important facts to the attention of a broader audience.
Aside from the very strong warnings coming from my own inner guideance, I had a Russian girlfriend who went back to Chenoble some
10 years or more after the power plant breakdown there, and the stories she had to tell of a myriad of health problems plaguing residents from many miles around was distressing in the extreme. And that, of course, is just the beginning. I wish you the strength and the means to bring your work to the widest possible stage.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am
A big thank you to the producers of this informative (and scary) video clip. Being a former resident of Adelaide it was fairly stressful viewing. As a child growing up there, the only thing to fear from the northerly winds in summer was the heat. I’m just grateful I don’t have any children growing up there.
Maybe we should dismantle Parliament House and rebuild it at Roxby? I wonder how many of our beloved “pollies” would be keen to run the country from there.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Great effort David. Love your work.
Every stage of the nuclear cycle poses enormous risks to our people and our environment. Uranium mining is not only dangerous in releasing radioactivity at the mine site, but also in waste, in radiation leakage and in weapons proliferation.
We have protested today outside Lucas Heights nuclear facility in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire. The new Lucas Heights OPAL reactor is shut down indefinately due to engineering faults.
Delegates from an International Atomic Energy Agency conference visited the site in what must have been a major embarrassment to the Government and a setback to the credibility of ANSTO and Ziggy Switkowski, the former hand picked head of the PM’s pro-nuclear review and advocate of 25 nuclear reactors for Australia by 2050.
Australians can have little confidence in the plan for 25 nuclear reactors across the country when ANSTO can’t deliver on one small nuclear research reactor.
The Greens would permanently close the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor and redirect the cost savings of $140 million a year from closing the reactor to renewed efforts by Australia for international nuclear disarmament and to fund a clean up of the legacy of radiation created by the industry in Australia.
Take out 3rd party insurance to spare us from a nuclear future by voting 1 Green on November 24.
regards
Jamie Paterson
Greens candidate for Hughes
www.greens.org.au/Hughes
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6842570773
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsJyH5KfcFk
November 9th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0308/S00219.htm
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
http://nuclearwaste-theroyprocess.blogspot.com/
The Roy Process for Neutralizing Nuclear Waste
Man-made radiation affects the whole Earth and everything in it! Everyone! The Roy
Process is photon transmutation of nuclear waste to zero radioactivity. Includes
plutonium 239, the element for atom bombs. It works by eliminating the excess
neutrons in the nucleus of the atom, causing rapid decay and heat which can make
electricity.
The Roy Process is a private invention by Dr. Roy and I still follow his death bed
instructions. It was invented after the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979
during the summer break from A.S.U. and was an Associated Press news story and
went world wide. A large company saw the Patent Application under non-disclosure
agreements and said the Roy Process was “entirely feasible”.
Then President Reagan signed “The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act” which made
(geologic isolation) burial of nuclear waste, new federal policy! This limited
science to burial which they wanted, putting viable alternatives in limbo.
A professor friend says things happen or not happen for reasons. Clearly there is
far more money in mischief, in killing people, in a toxic regime…than the reverse!
Guest Article: Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful
Friday, 29 August 2003, 12:36 pm
Opinion: Guest Opinion
A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful
By Dennis F. Nester,
special for NuclearNo.com,
Originally published 20 June 2003
- Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements
- There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process
It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology.
Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below).
The Roy Process Brief Description
from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? Maybe! One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.
Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.
In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.
What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.
How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.
It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.
To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.
The Roy Process could be developed in three distinct phases, according to Roy. Phase I consists of a theoretical feasibility study of the process to obtain needed parameters for the construction of a prototype machine. Phase II will involve the construction of a prototype machine and supporting facilities for demonstrating the process. Phase Ill will consist of the construction of large scale commercial plants based on the data obtained from Phase II.
Cost estimates for Phase I and II are in the neighborhood of $10 million. For Phase Ill, Roy estimates a cost of $70 million. Says Roy, `It will be interesting to do a cost analysis of eliminating nuclear waste by using my process and by burying it for 240,000 years - ten half-lives of plutonium - under strict scientific control. There is also an ethical question: can we really burden the thousands of generations yet to come with problems which we have created? There is no God among human beings who can guarantee how the geological structure of waste burial regions will change even after ten thousand years, not to mention 240,000 years.”
If you are interested in finding out more about this process, please contact Dennis Nester, Roy`s agent, whose address is listed below.
A final note
To those who say that a process for transforming nuclear wastes is an invitation to keep making them, I ask, when we find a cure for cancer, shall we say it`s okay to continue to eat, drink and breathe carcinogens?
“There is no way one can change nuclear structure other than by nuclear reaction. Burial of nuclear waste is not a solution.” Radha Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus
“Do not be surprised if you learn that the nuclear industry makes billions of dollars by being a part of government`s policy of burial of nuclear wastes. It is not in their financial interest to try any other process. They are not idealists. Radha R. Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus
The below includes the Patent application claim…..describing other uses for the Roy Process transmutation method
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html
*************
AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS
Dennis F. Nester 4510 E. Willow Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85032 USA (602) 494-9361 theroyprocess@cox.net
————————————–
http://tinyurl.com/28bq4e [San Francisco Bayview]
From Hiroshima to Iraq, 61 years of uranium wars: A suicidal, genocidal, omnicidal course
By Leuren Moret
Tuesday, 26 December 2006
November 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Hi,
I just wanted to enquire why you did not include what precautions the mining companies take to ensure that no nuclear materials are released. It costs the mining companies millions of dollars to ensure the mines are safe from any nuclear particles being released into the atmosphere or water supply.
Do you really think the government would allow the mines to continue if it was putting any people at risk as they do not want Australian’s sick as that would cost them money in the health care systems. I think this was a very one sided video and you should have at least mentioned the fact that what you were saying was a possibility would only happen if the mining companies broke all regulations (which would result in them being shut down and losing billions of dollars) and the chances of this happening were like 100 billion to one.
Have you actually done any research into the precautions the mining companies take to make sure no one gets hurt? If not maybe you should look into this. If so then why not mention it in your piece?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Come on, are you people really so gullible? Are you people so easy led by miss information? This is a joke, and it makes me sick that people spread this rubbish as fact.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Great, it is about time people are made aware of how sneaky big business & goverments can be.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:59 am
I hope every Australian gets to see this doco, I just ordered a copy myself.
Researched this topic after seeing first hand the squeezing of the water, here is my brief wrap.
http://news.rosettamoon.com/?p=185
It appears this stems from the Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 - since when were our parliamentarians empowered to dismiss existing legislation to protect the environment and our health.
Parnell and Nick Xenophon are sure active on this but perhaps they need a few more Australians to wake up to the magnitude of the issue.
Well done David!