Ronaldinho Rocks!
NZ - A Nuclear Free Zone.....kind of?
Watching the horrific events unfold at the Nuclear Power Plants and Reactors in Japan, and after the earthquake in Christchurch, I am relieved that New Zealand took such a strong stance on being a Nuclear Free Zone back in the 1980s.
However, I hadn't realised that the Nuclear Free law didn't include making the building of Nuclear Power Plants illegal in NZ.
Anybody know why this wasn't included? Or have I got this wrong?
Yorkshire Ambassador to New Zealand
Well it's not as though someone is going to just go and build a nuclear plant in their garden without the govenment approving it is it?
Senior Member
Mmm, but approving something unpopular/contentious is quite different to approving something illegal.Originally Posted by Duncan74
Senior Member
The No Nuke policy in NZ is aimed towards banning international nuclear ships from coming near the waters of NZ. Back in the 80s, this was the time where France was the leader in testing their nuclear bombs and the Rainbow Warrior conflict in Auckland. (the focus was to prevent nuclear threats from coming to NZ - ie. France's nuke testing on the Atoll Islands).
The media does a good job of the dangers of nukes but does a poor job noting dangerous emissions from disasters like burning oil wells (Gulf of Mexico disaster - Gulf War). All sources of energy production has risks and dangers. What we have here is a lot of people spewing their mouth away with no talk on an alternative (solar and windmills are not the answer).
Before this thread goes out of hand, we need to distinguish between man made vs. natural disasters. You can be sure far more fatalities exist from these natural disasters than any amount of nuclear power plant failures. No matter if you have workers in the nuclear plant or workers on an oil platform in the middle of the ocean, everyone is at risk.
Be thankful Japan has taken precautionary measures by evacuating people near the nuke facilities. Also if you think a place is uninhabitable after a nuke meltdown, think again. 1000s of years of uninhabitable life for such an area is quite exaggerated. The worse case of nuclear disaster history I can think of is Chernobyl and by arrangement, people can still travel there (levels not dangerous enough to ban people from going there). Overall, nuclear power still has a good track record.
From the horse's mouth:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp...1031301-e.html
Ronaldinho Rocks!
Ahhh I see, so it was a direct reaction to nuclear testing.
I'd have thought, regarless of your views on the value of nuclear power stations, that there would be very good arguments for not siting them in countries which suffer earthquakes.
Duncan, I wasn't suggesting that there would be lots of budding Monty Burns in NZ. It was more that I personally was under the misguided belief that NZ was unique in not allowing any kind of nuclear 'stuff' by law. Turns out I was wrong - if that is actually possible?!
Yorkshire Ambassador to New Zealand
Well now I'm worried that I'm going to get swallowed by a black hole and a rip in the space time continuum.Turns out I was wrong - if that is actually possible?!
Senior Member
Well now I'm worried that I'm going to get swallowed by a black hole and a rip in the space time continuum.
Member
Is it the one they're building in Switzerland that's concerning you or just a random one. :-)
Well now I'm worried that I'm going to get swallowed by a black hole and a rip in the space time continuum.
Senior Member
Actually, it turns out Japan had a worse nuclear disaster about 65 years ago. Two in fact. Thing is, ground zero is a park now and surrounded by modern buildings.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2160.html
Don't mean to be insensitive about those events or this weeks. Point is, as you say, the 1000s of years of radiation apparently is not true.
Ocean Viewer
The title of the act is (a little bit) misleading: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 - to be found here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM115116.html.
However the "preamble" reads amongst others:
"An Act to establish in New Zealand a Nuclear Free Zone, to promote and encourage an active and effective contribution by New Zealand to the essential process of disarmament and international arms control, and to implement in New Zealand the following treaties:
(a) The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty of 6 August 1985 (the text of which is set out in Schedule 1 to this Act):
(b) The Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water of 5 August 1963 (the text of which is set out in Schedule 2 to this Act):
(c) The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 (the text of which is set out in Schedule 3 to this Act):
(d) The Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-bed and the Ocean floor and in the Subsoil Thereof of 11 February 1971 (the text of which is set out in Schedule 4 to this Act):
(e) The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction of 10 April 1972 (the text of which is set out in Schedule 5 to this Act)...
[Section 4] New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone
There is hereby established the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, which shall comprise:
(a) All of the land, territory, and inland waters within the territorial limits of New Zealand; and
(b) The internal waters of New Zealand; and
(c) The territorial sea of New Zealand; and
(d) The airspace above the areas specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this section."
Section 4(a) leaves a lot space for interpretation in context with all the other sections.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote