The federal government has claimed that under an opposition-proposed nuclear plan, more than 11,000 farms would fall within a nuclear “ingestion zone”.
Food, milk and water within an 80km radius of the proposed nuclear reactors could all be contaminated in the event of a nuclear leak, threatening the nation’s food production.
The Coalition last month unveiled proposed sites for seven nuclear reactors in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, as part of its energy plan.
Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today
But the opposition has now been asked to explain the impact the nuclear “ingestion zone” would have on Australian farmers.
Labor agriculture ministers from every state and territory affected by the opposition’s nuclear proposal released a joint statement on Thursday, saying they had a duty to protect the future of the agriculture industry.
“We have serious concerns that this duty would be compromised by the federal opposition’s proposal for nuclear power in and around prime agricultural land,” they said.
Federal Minister for Agriculture Murray Watt said under the proposed plan, according to international standards, farmers would need a new set of guidelines.
“In the United States, several states there — Florida, California, Indiana, Illinois — they all have very detailed plans that tell farmers what they need to do in the event of a nuclear accident if they’re living within that same radius,” he said.
“My question to Peter Dutton and (Nationals leader) David Littleproud is, what instructions are they going to provide to farmers if there is a nuclear accident within that ingestion zone, as it’s known in the United States?
“What extra regulation is going to be required of farmers to make sure that they keep their food production safe?”
US farmers in those zones are obliged to take on preventative measures during an emergency, such as providing livestock with separate feed and water, holding shipments and decontaminating produce.
Leaks have been detected in groundwater at 37 out of 54 nuclear sites in the US since 1979, though the radioactive material dissipates quickly and is rarely found outside reactor boundaries, according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report.
Littleproud knocked back similar claims made by Watt at the Global Food Forum on Wednesday, about a nuclear future threatening the nation’s water security.
Littleproud rejected the claims — which the Agriculture Minister later attributed to an Australian National University study finding that nuclear energy production consumed 40 per cent more water than coal — as “scaremongering.”
He said in a statement on Wednesday that water usage would be limited to that of the current entitlements of the coal stations the nuclear reactors would replace.
He said the claims were “hypocrisy”, given the government’s plan for an internationally competitive renewable hydrogen industry, which he said “requires more water and is already taking water from farmers.”
Senator Bridget McKenzie, the acting leader of The Nationals with Littleproud currently on leave, told 7NEWS.com.au: “For decades, nuclear power stations have coexisted with world-renowned agricultural regions throughout Europe and North America without negatively impacting communities and commerce in the area.
“Solar and wind farms have far more effects on farming in Australia than nuclear will ever have.”
– With AAP
