JOINT MEDIA RELEASE – 350,000+ emergency and health services workers call on Dutton to drop nuclear

350,000+ emergency and health services workers call on Dutton to drop nuclear

CANBERRA WEDNESDAY 30 April, 2025 - Organisations representing over 350,000 emergency services workers have today called on Peter Dutton and the Coalition to drop their nuclear energy plan.

The letter, signed by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, Climate Action Nurses, Climate and Health Alliance, Doctors for the Environment Australia, and the United Firefighters Union of Australia  highlights the collective expertise of frontline responders in assessing the risks posed by nuclear energy, and declares that Australia’s current emergency services do not have the support or resources to respond to nuclear disasters.

Annie Butler, Federal Secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said:

“We are concerned for the impact that the proposed nuclear plants will have on the health of all people, but particularly nurses, midwives and carers.

What we are still yet to see are detailed health risk assessments including how the health of nurses, midwives, carers and the community will be protected. This is crucial  before any nuclear energy developments proceed.”

Michelle Isles, CEO of Climate and Health Alliance said:

"For too long the costs to health have been hidden in discussions about energy in Australia. Australian health workers are overwhelmed by the burden of illness and premature death from community exposure to coal fired power pollutants. Australia does not have the safeguards in place to address the health risks posed by nuclear power".

Greg Mullins, former Commissioner of Fire and Rescue New South Wales, and founder of Emergency Leaders for Climate Action said:

"The Coalition's nuclear scheme gives rise to far more questions than answers, and in the unlikely event it is ever actually delivered, will result in massive amounts of dangerous, additional climate pollution. Firefighters and other first responders will be expected to deal with situations for which they have no training, equipment or experience, and like in Chernobyl, possibly lose their lives.

“Costs for protection from nuclear accidents were not factored into the Coalition's vague modelling, and nobody should be fooled - this is nothing more than a ruse to continue generating profits for the fossil fuel industry who are funding the Coalition's election campaign."

Greg McConville, National Secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia said:

“Much has been said about the cost of living in this election, but we should not forget the cost of lives. People who live near nuclear reactors have heightened cancer risk, as do firefighters, and we cannot condone an even greater risk to whole communities when there are safer alternatives to nuclear power.”

—ENDS—

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Darren Rodrigo on 0414 783 405 or Tim Brunero on 0405 285 547

 JOINT OPEN LETTER

We, the undersigned organisations, represent over 350,000 emergency services workers including firefighters, nurses, midwives, paramedics, doctors, and other first responders and write to express our grave concerns regarding the potential introduction of nuclear power into Australia. 

As the frontline responders to disasters and emergencies, we are uniquely positioned to assess the risks posed by nuclear energy infrastructure to public safety, worker health, and environmental security.

Australia’s emergency services do not have the support or resources to respond to nuclear disasters. Unlike other nations with established nuclear industries, Australia lacks the necessary infrastructure, resources, and expertise to manage incidents involving nuclear reactors or radioactive waste transportation and storage.

Furthermore, international examples have shown that populations residing in close proximity to nuclear reactors are at an increased risk of developing severe health complications. Existing emergency response and health frameworks would need extensive—and costly—overhauls to address these challenges effectively.

Nuclear accidents expose emergency responders to ionizing radiation levels far exceeding safe occupational limits. International precedents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate the devastating health impacts on first responders, including acute radiation sickness and long-term cancer risks. 

Current federal guidelines allow firefighters, emergency services, essential services and health workers to be exposed to radiation doses up to 500 times higher than civilian safety limits during catastrophic events. This is an unacceptable risk.

Emergency services are already stretched thin due to escalating climate-fueled disasters such as bushfires and floods. Introducing nuclear energy would add another layer of complexity and risk, without addressing these existing challenges.

The workers most likely to be affected by an accident or an evacuation are part of the communities surrounding these proposed reactors. We do not want our neighbours, our families, or our communities exposed to the ever-present risk of a nuclear accident.

In light of these concerns, we call on the Coalition to abandon plans for nuclear energy in Australia, and prioritise safer energy solutions that do not endanger workers or communities, like solar and wind backed up by storage.

We stand ready to work with policymakers on alternative pathways for a sustainable energy future that does not jeopardize lives or strain our critical emergency services.

SIGNATORIES:

Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation 

Emergency Leaders for Climate Action

Climate Action Nurses

Climate and Health Alliance

Doctors for the Environment Australia

United Firefighters Union of Australia

Links to additional resources:

• The letter comes off the back of an analysis by the United Firefighters Union of Australia showing that establishing nuclear firefighting capabilities in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s standards would cost over half a billion dollars.
• Recent modelling has shown that a nuclear accident at one of the proposed 7 sites would have far-reaching consequences, including 32 hospitals and medical centres falling within a 30KM evacuation zone of each site.