Britain's Toxic Coast
"The original dream for nuclear power was that it would create a world free from deprivation and suffering;  instead, with its need for a rigorous security system, it is
opening up the prospect of a repressive society in which dissent can no longer be tolerated."

Peter Bunyard, "Nuclear Britain", 1981, New English Library. ISBN  0-450-05108-0

Last up-dated
:   9/9/16

(this page)
Facts Archived Pages

Braystones from the air
The beach bungalows at Braystones, Cumbria.  

Visible in the background is St. Bees Head.   The proposed RWE power station, which was rejected by the government in 2012 as unacceptable1, 2, would have been on the fields to the right.  

In August, 2012, a landslip derailed a train at the top of the picture, a further one stranded the rescue train.  
The limestone patch on the right of the picture are the scene of a further landslip in 2014.

(The railway serves Sellafield's nuclear flask trains and is little changed from when it was completed in 1850.   Residents have complained for years about what they see as an unsafe line.)


Response to NuGen's Consultation Process, Stage 2.

We may have been absent for a few weeks, but we haven't been idle.   We have spent all the time researching, typing, and proof-reading a comprehensive document to rebut the assertions in NuGen's literature, especially the bits that say residents are in favour of their "Moorside" project.

How can anyone even contemplate building an intrinsically dangerous factory in the buffer zone of Sellafield - itself denounced as being an unacceptable risk?   It is tantamount to building a match factory alongside an oil refinery.   Despite the obvious link between the "Moorside" and Sellafield sites, NuGen insist that they don't do anything like what Sellafield does - except us radioactive materials, lots of natural resources, pollute the environment, turn beautiful natural countryside into huge industrial estates, destroying wildlife and people's amenity, etc.   Not the same thing at all  . . .   Or is it?

A buffer zone is required round Sellafield in order to provide basic safety to residents and the environment in the event of an "incident" occurring, perhaps as a result of something happening as a result of the "unacceptable risk" as identified by the Select Committee.   The buffer zone was not intended to be a planning opportunity.   Should the NDA have accepted £70 million for the land instead of preserving it for its proper function?   The NDA are prohibited from promoting nuclear development, but is this not what they have done?   Where is the buffer zone now?   How have Copeland Council covered the damage to Beckermet and, in particular, the setting of the 11th century listed building St. Bridget's Church?

The submission made in July, 2016, can be found here.

The Submission made in July, 2015, can be found here.

For those who can't be bothered to read so much, a two-page summary of some of the salient points can be found here.

(It is a copy of a letter sent to the Whitehaven News, and was published by them on 11/8/16)

"Even without the link to nuclear proliferation, nuclear power carries dangers of a magnitude that we ought not to accept.   There is something profoundly stupid about continuing to multiply a series of engineering marvels that contain fifteen billion curies of radiation.   We do not know enough about radiation and cannot be sure enough of our technical prowess to allow this system to dominate our energy supply.   Moreover, the instinctive fear of radioactivity is not irrational, as the nuclear advocates assert;  it is also so universal and so enduring that it is a political fact of life."

from "The Nuclear Barons" by Peter Pringle and James Spigelman
ISBN 0-7221-7029-7

Panoramic View

The BBC screened a very interesting programme about safety at Sellafield on Monday, 5/9/16.   The Panorama programme investigated the site and, it has to be said, came out with some very troubling information.   Needless to say, Sellafield's supporters could see nothing wrong.   More worrying is that John Clark, Chief Executive of the NDA, seemed to dispute the evidence presented, not just by the programme but in official government reports.   The Health and Safety manager was particularly lack-lustre, and could only counter the evidence with repeated statements that the matters raised are being attended to.   He seemed to be unable to see that his job was not just to deal with dangerous situations after they had arisen, but to prevent them happening in the first place.   A good example of this being the storage, in plastic bottles, of uranium and plutonium, which had been placed in a fume cupboard.   It seems they are now degrading and pose quite a danger.   How could so many bottles of such dangerous material have been stored like this in the first place, and was it not the job of managers - especially health and safety managers - to put a stop to the practise?

The overwhelming number of alarms was almost amusing.   How long before an alarm is merely reset when it is indicating a real and serious danger?   How many times can any alarm just be reset before more intelligent action is taken?   Wasn't there something similar in the Three Mile Island event?   (Of course, that couldn't happen in Sellafield - until it does.)

An article in The Ecologist reports that the Chief Security Officer for the site has sent a memo
round, reminding people of the requirement for secrecy and complains that the release to the press of photographs of the various areas of concern did not comply with the official process for communicating with the press.   It almost seems as if worries about outside people being made aware of the parlous state of the plant is of more concern than is the dangerous state of the plant.    It fits with the political attitude in Cumbria:  don't less the press or the anti-nuclear people know anything detrimental about nuclear.   Yes, it may be cracking up and in danger of leaking, or catching fire;  it may create a radioactive plume which will cause mayhem across the north of England and Western Europe, but do not tell anyone.   Have they never heard the phrase "prevention is better than cure"?   Who allowed these problems to even start, never mind develop to their current level?   Why are those people still around to deny things are dangerous, and promising - yet again - that all is well and these minor irritations are being dealt with?   Just as importantly:

How can anyone be allowed to build nuclear reactors immediately alongside this plant?



Mushrooms and Ministers

We are apolitical - our experiences and observations of politicians and their "advisors" leave us particularly annoyed and amazed at the extent to which self-interest and corruption can be tolerated in the allegedly democratic system.   Cameron arrived in office as Prime Minister promising to deal with the massive influx of special advisors, pointing out that they would be the next big scandal.   Sadly, he did nothing.   The special advisors continue to peddle propaganda for big industry and vested interests, most usually to the detriment of truth and justice.   Private Eye 1426 (2/9/16) contains six pages of information about how Ministers, MPs and Civil Servants have taken employment with companies with whom they have been dealing, including making decisions on contracts, in the course of their official rôle.

The manner in which DECC and its ministers pushed for nuclear development gave rise to considerable concern for us.   When we started this site the DECC minister was Chris. Huhne.   We know now about his honesty.   Next up, (now Sir) Ed Davey, who left government to work for a lobbying company, MHP Communications, who are the lobbying firm for Électricité de France - a company who already has employees seconded to the department!   According to Private Eye, Davey was responsible for "pushing a £20 billion  (and rising) nuclear contract whilst in office."    There is, of course (!), no suggestion of improper conduct, but neither is there any transparency.

By a strange coincidence, linking to several other contemporary stories, together with the Panorama programme we report elsewhere, Reuters report that 'former Japanese Premier Junichiro Koizumi has said that current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a “lie” by downplaying the damage wrought by the Fukushima nuclear accident, and claiming that the radioactivity contaminating the site was “under control.”'   An additional report in The Times, 8/9/16, add that Mr. Koizumi acknowledged that, as prime minister from 2001 to 2006, he supported Japan's nuclear power programme but he said he now opposed it.   "I believed what the experts told me, that nuclear energy was safe", he said.

The prime minister at the time of the disaster, Naoto Khan, attended meetings in Anglesey last year to support those who were opposing the Wylfa proposals.   The company proposing to build were dismissive of the opposition, saying that there was no chance of a tsunami occuring on Anglesey - as if that were the sole cause of nuclear accidents!


Fukushima has long-since passed out of U.K. news, even though it is still continuing to pose serious problems for Japanese residents and the environment.   The abilities of the various nuclear factions to suppress unwelcome news continues to amaze.

Of course, keeping things secret is one of the keys to nuclear expansion and the habit started early, continuing to this day.   Many years ago, for example, Tony Benn, M.P., spoke in the House:

From Hansard:   5 Apr 2000 : Column 1000

"The longer I served in Government – I was a Minister for 11 years – the more I found that it was easy for people to confuse the public interest with the convenience of Ministers.   That is easy to do;  if it embarrasses Ministers, it cannot be in the public interest – but in fact, it is not in the interest of Ministers.

The real reason why I want to contribute to the debate is because of the nuclear industry, for which I had responsibility for many years.   Recent events at Sellafield confirm what I learned by experience; even as a Minister – let alone a Member of Parliament – I was never told the truth by the nuclear industry.   For example, I found out about the fire at Windscale – now called Sellafield – only when I visited Tokyo.   My officials had never told me about it.   When I asked them why they had not done so, they said, “It was before you were a Minister”.

When the Americans discovered that there had been an explosion at Khysthm, the major Soviet reprocessing plant, I was never told.   I asked the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, “Why didn’t you tell me?”   He replied, “We were told by the Central Intelligence Agency not to tell British Ministers, because it could create concern about the safety of nuclear power”.

It was not until I left office that I discovered that, while I had been making honest speeches about atoms for peace, all the plutonium from our civil nuclear power stations was going to America to make the bomb.   The atoms for peace power stations were bomb factories for the Pentagon.   I felt affronted by that.   Had people known the facts at the time, the development of the debate on nuclear power and the nuclear industry would have been much better informed.   We should not have had the problem at Sellafield, because the matter would probably have been dealt with earlier."

From Hansard:   Early Day Motion, 413

That this House is deeply concerned by the hazards at Sellafield exposed by the BBC's Panorama documentary, Sellafield's Nuclear Safety Failings; notes that these failings include the storage of radioactive waste in degrading plastic bottles and 97 incidents of staff shortages; further notes with concern the potentially catastrophic damage that could be caused by any leakage of nuclear waste; pays tribute to the work done by the BBC and the whistleblowers at Sellafield; urges the Government to establish an inquiry into improving security at Sellafield; further urges the acceleration of the nuclear decommissioning program for nuclear waste; and calls on the Government to avoid worsening the situation with new nuclear developments at Moorside and Hinkley Point C.

The concerns expressed on the Panorama programme were obviously notified to the Sellafield management in advance, so the usual pro-nuclear support leap forward to its defence.   (See the Facts page to see what was said by the various M.P.s)   The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (successor to DECC) N. Hurd, M.P., issued a string of placating rhetoric, including the best known, "everything at Sellafield is safe" - no doubt no animals were hurt at any time, and there was no release of radioactive materials, no danger to the public, etc.   However, in one of the most amusing paragraphs, he states that he has asked the regulators whether Sellafield is safe.   What does he expect them to say?   Can they possibly say no, it is a little bit dangerous round the edges, thereby acknowledging their failures?   What of the reports from Select Committees that were dismissed by the chief executive of the NDA, Clark, who is obviously in a better position to see how safe things are.

What is more concerning, however, is that Early Day Motion 413 only attracted seven signatures.   Is this the result of apathy, ignorance or idleness?   Or do they not watch Panorama?

. . . and those photographs and videos, internal records, government reports, etc.?   Were they all faked?   Were the American company that was dismissed  in April, merely spouting sour grapes?   Surely not!   Despite the rebuttal of the programme's logical findings, there was no rebuttal of individual components of the evidence.    Do we see yet more mushroom fodder for the government?



Elsewhere on this site we question NuGen staff's assertion that there are identical AP1000 reactors "safely and reliably up and running".   It seems that in Vogtle, Georgia, U.S.A. - a project which has so far taken 30 years and is still not complete - the costs are already above those for Hinkley, standing at $900 million over the $14 billion budgeted for the 2.2 GW development.   It is also running 14 months late.   Pretty much on a par with all the other safe, reliable, reactors from other manufacturers then?


Most things are continuing without too much ado.   The Whitehaven News continues its mainly pro-nuclear articles and "news" stories provided by Sellafield, its supporters and the local and natrional politicians.   We find it very strange that Sellafield is still credited with helping to support local causes and helping to build educational facilities, provide equipment, etc.   Yet Sellafield does not earn a profit.   On the contrary, it costs U.K. taxpayers over £1,500,000,000 every year - increasing annually, of course to enable the private companies involved to make hefty profits.   So, why does the press, particularly the Whitehaven News, which should know better, persist in publishing these stories of Sellafield as a great benefactor?

Elsewhere, the stories are of over 6 million visitors coming to the Lake District.   How many of them visited the coastal areas?   How much money could that tourism have contributed to the local economy of Copeland and its associates?  

The BBC managed to get stirred up enough to present a short article in their North West Tonight programme about the objections of Millom residents to having the pylons associated with "Moorside" striding across their patch of land.   It seems unlikely that they have yet realised that one string of the pylons will be adequate to convey the amount of power produced and include redundancy for faults.   So a miminum of two strings will be required, spaced a few miles apart.   Millom's answer is to bury the cables - without appearing to consider the concept of not building "Moorside" at all.

Panorama, on Monday, 5th September, is to present an article on the dangers of Sellafield's legacy wastes and the risks associated therewith.   Again, they seem to be missing the trick.   How can it possibly be safe to build three more highly risky reactors literally just across the road from such a site as Sellafield.   As we said in our recent letter to the Whitehaven News - which they published in full - the local councillors may be able to change the Local Plans, but they can't make the situation safe or sensible by doing so.   Hopefully this view of the situation in Sellafield will avoid the sanitised verson presented by Professor Jim al Khalili the last time round.

Our letter to the Queen back at the beginning of July at last elicited a response.   We wrote suggesting that, as Her Majesty owned the seabed around the U.K. coast, she could put a stop to the idea of power companies digging ut up, tunneling under it, or bulding structures thereon.   As expected, the response says that Her Majesty cannot get involved in state matters.   Our letter was, however, forwarded to various departments.   Perhaps we should have sent her the full response to the consultation document - maybe if it came via H.M. Queen they would have bothered to read it?   The copy we sent to what used to be D.E.C.C. and is now D.B.E.I.S. merely elicited the response that we were correct about NuGen's proposals to build in Cumbria.   However, as NuGen is a private consortium with private financial means, it was nothing to do with D.B.E.I.S.   Strange when you think of the guarantees, etc., that are involved.   We believe that it is a lot to do with D.B.E.I.S.

The Times today has a very interesting article by Matt Ridley on the truth behind climate change.   He debunks a lot of the myths that have annoyed us for so long, and points out that the earth has indeed been much warmer than it presently is, and that the anomaly of a short Ice Age - caused by volcanic debris blocking sunlight from the earth - is the reason behind the apparent rapid increase.   The atmosphere is merely reverting to its long-term trend.

Ref.:   Comment:  "Ice Scares Aren't All They're Cracked Up To Be", Matt Ridley, The Times, 1/9/16.

Back to the D.B.E.I.S. news.   They are currently considering whether to appeal against the findings of the court over the awarding of the contract to move radioactive material around the country, under the guise of a "clean-up".   See our article of 31/7/16, "Something Nasty Which Leaves a Fishy Smell", below.

The political climate in France has deteriorated, with the result that they are now hoping that Hinkley C is turned down in order that they can have a real up-to-date reason for hating the British.   On the other side of the world the Chinese are still upsetting our other hopeful nuclear provider, the Japanese, with their stance over the South China Sea and some small islands that are now a bit bigger than they used to be as a result of Chinese construction projects.   Presumably the true motive is the discovery of rare minerals under the sea bed.   However, Japan now wishes to dramatically increase its budget for its armed forces, to supply them with modern equipment.   Would it be amusing to have both these companies building in the U.K. at the same time, with the French as referee?   Perhaps not.

We've mentioned earlier about the involvement of local and national politicians.   Their allegiance to the nuclear cause has paid dividends in the past with various awards.   The father of the movement, Nuclear Jack Cunningham - Lord of the Realm - was recently awarded a Japanese honour:  The Rising Sun Gold and Silver Star.   Known for his love of all things nuclear, Lord Cunningham was certainly influential in developing the dependency of west Cumbria on nuclear development and this, at least, will have assisted Toshiba to get its plans for "Moorside" on the table.


Chinese Taken Away

International politics are very strange and difficult.   You think you understand something, then all of a sudden you don't know anything.   Hinkley Point C has been on the cards for years, each time it is almost due for an official start and the copious and ostentatious signings of contracts is scheduled, along comes another hiccup.

The nuclear industry works on the premise of not giving people time to think about all the ramifications of a project.   They have people in high office (and local policitians, too), who are very willing to support anything that expands or promotes nuclear development, no matter what the cost to the community forced into hosting it.   (How many nuclear power stations are there in the Cotswolds?)

So Électricité de France, accompanied by China General Nuclear Power tried to "bounce" the new Prime Minister into signing up for the Hinkley project, despite widespread informed opinion that the whole deal was impossibly expensive, too risky, and relied too much on foreign powers.   China General Nuclear Power is one of China's state-owned company, under the direct control of the State Council, comprised of members of the Communist Party of China.

For years now, a host of nations, including Russia, North Korea and China have been accused of hacking into sensitive networks belonging to Western powers.   Not just individuals are being hacked, but all the major companies and departments of state.   The aim is to spy on technical and commercial operations so that the hackers have a distinct advantage.  

The Five Eyes alliance is a secretive, global surveillance arrangement of States comprised of the United States National Security Agency, the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment Canada, the Australian Signals Directorate, and New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau.   The idea being that all those countries share a bit of their intelligence for the greater good.

Australia has banned Chinese companies from being involved in sensitive operations.   It may well be for good reason:  a Chinese man who once worked for Westinghouse but is now a naturalised American, has been charged with leading a conspiracy to steal American power companies' secrets in order to speed up the development and production of China's reactor technology.   Because there is no proper legislation available to support the accusation, the senior advisor to China General Nuclear Power has been charged under legislation designed to curtail proliferation of nuclear weapons.   The timing is very interesting, as the U.K. government will not be making the decision on Hinkley until after the American courts have decided the case.

Meanwhile, in Japan, where 87% of the people are opposed to nuclear development and the restarting of the reactors stopped following Fukushima's disaster, there are moves to permit the government to expand their military arsenal.   Perhaps the fears over China's claim to islands in the South China Sea are the real reason, but could they have other things on their minds?

Amusingly, immediately after the decision not to decide was made, China threatened to withdraw from other major projects if Hinkley (and subsequently their own Bradwell development) did not go ahead.   Isn't that the type of behaviour that people in the U.K. are afraid of?


Something Nasty Which Leaves a Fishy Smell

We have long suggested that the actions of the nuclear industry are ripe for the attention of investigative journalism.   That misleading statements are made, government and local positions infiltrated by pro-nuclear activists or even nuclear company staff, merely adds to our discomfort.   Having seen what goes on in Cumbria, it was of little surprise to learn that Électricité de France staff had done the rounds in the Hinkley area to offer to place local businesses on the approved list of suppliers and contractors.   Our view is that this is almost blackmail.   The key question is whether any company refusing to consider Électricité de France's offer still make it onto the approved list?   If the answer is yes, then what is the point of the exercise?   Or is the idea, as we believe, to make suggestions that a business stands to gain - but only if they support the Hinkley build?

That the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, certainly caused a lot of fuss over the decision to not decide about Hinkley until later in the year.   It seems that a government adviser has thoughts about nuclear and security (has he been reading our site?) that don't fit with the requisite pro-nuclear view.   We are currently placing bets on their longevity in the respective roles.   Nasty news tends to attach itself to those who don't agree with the nuclear industry.   People don't refer to the Sellafield mafia affectionately.

Radiation Free Lakeland has drawn our attention to the circumvention of the rules in respect of nuclear waste dumping.   Some controlled releases into the environment will be permitted, as it apparently will not affect other countries.

For us, though, the clincher was the High Court ruling that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority had cooked the books in relation to a £7 billion contract to decommission a variety of nuclear sites.   The contract was awarded to a consortium of Babcock and Fluor, known as the Cavendish Fluor Partnership, back in 2014.   Babcock Nuclear's website states, "We are strategic partners to Électricité de France Energy".   (Anyone recognise a pattern here?)   The losing company, Energy Solutions - which may be something of a misnomer, as there is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste - sued the NDA, as it considered that its tender was far better economically than the one that Fluor had submitted.   It seems they were right.

The judge, Mr. Justice Fraser, decided that the authority had "manipulated" the assessment and awarding of the contract.   He went on, "It sought to avoid the consequence of disqualification by fudging the evaluation - to avoid reaching a situation where Cavendish Fluor would be given a fail."   He added that Cavendish Fluor should have been disqualified, as Energy Solutions' was the most economically advantageous tender, with a score 6% better than that of Cavendish Fluor.   To avoid any misunderstanding, the judge said, "By the word 'fudging', I mean choosing and outcome and manipulating the evaluation to reach that outcome.   This was by choosing a score high enough to avoid that undesirable outcome, rather than arriving at a score by properly considering the content of the tender against the scoring criteria."   He also said, "There were manifest errors by the NDA in the evaluation of the tender".   The NDA are surely no strangers to evaluating contracts?   How could they make "mistakes" like this?   It might almost seem as if there is some mysterious and nefarious force at work.

However, Energy Solutions has launched a bid to reclaim the costs of its bid and lost profits, so only the U.K. taxpayer will suffer the loss.   The claim is believed to be between £120 million and £200 million.   If it is successful, will there be a public enquiry into the matter, or even - Heaven forefend! - a criminal investigation.   Will heads roll?   Unlikely.  Anyone have a large tarpaulin to help the cover up?

In a kindly effort to alleviate embarrassment to the NDA, the judge offered that, "They may have been suffering from over-work".   Given what we see going on around, we think he may be being just a little too kind.   By a huge coincidence, the Chief Executive, John Clarke, has announced his retirement from the NDA.   What will he do next, we wonder.

Now the contract has been awarded, Cavendish Fluor have put up the price by £1.6 billion.   Nice work, but what is the point of tendering for a contract if the bid price can be varied at will immediately afterwards.   Kindly note the euphemism, too, when they refer to nuclear "clean up".   Obviously there is no such thing.   All that happens is that the radioactive materials are moved around, but the only thing that cleans up radioactivity is time.

Ref.    http://www.the


The National Audit Office's Verdict

It appears that whatever else happens to Hinkley,
Électricité de France will not be out of pocket.   Should the British government decide to come to its senses and put an end to the whole fiasco, it will still cost the taxpayer £2.5 billion.   Well done the experts at DECC.   In the event that it should go ahead, then we will be committed to paying the French £30 billion in subsidies over 35 years.   Of course, if at any time anything goes wrong . . .   Is it possible to force a foreign country to honour its obligations and contracts?   According to The Sunday Times, the National Audit Office has done some sums and is due to report that :

Hinkley is "the world's largest and least appropriate private finance initiative deal."  

Goodness only knows that successive governments have instigated some scandalously poor private finance initiatives or PFIs as they are known.   The strange thing is that this agreement with 
Électricité de France has been around for years and no-one has shown it for what it is.   Why would that be?   Aren't DECC's civil servants supposed to be smarter than this?   Given the verdict in the above article about the awarding of a contract to an less-worthy winner, is there not something we should know?   Who is too friendly with whom?   Who has shares in what?   What rewards and awards are/were in the offing on completion of the Électricité de France deal?   Certainly a lot of Cumbrian people should be in line for awards for services to the nuclear industry.

Sadly their legacy will endure for centuries after they are gone.   Which prompts the thought:  if the deal does fall through and nuclear is properly judged for what it is, then will the likes of Électricité de France, NuGen and Horizon be required to reinstate the land they have damaged?   Obliged to restore it to its original state?   It is a lovely idea - but will it happen?   Should it not happen?

Clean Up or Just Shove It Out of Sight?   Burying Bad News

While other sources are concentrating on the cost of the mess that is Hinkley, the cost of cleaning up nuclear sites is being overlooked.   The amount of the clean up is somewhere aroung £117 billion at the moment, but that is possibly just another fudged figure.   Again, we note the euphemism "clean up".   What it means is burying as much as they can get away with, then shipping the rest elsewhere for longer term burial or storage.   There is no true clean-up at all.   The means does not exist.

Happily, Braystones Beach afficinados can rest secure in the knowledge that the Environment Agency believes:

The conclusion, based on the currently available information, is that the overall health risks to beach users are
very low and significantly lower than other risks that people accept when using the beaches.

So, nothing to worry about, except that the above statement does not say that there are no risks from radioactive particles and other effluents pertaining to using the beach.   Why, then, are there no signs warning the unwary of a potential danger?   Around the coasts of the U.K. there are signs advising on local conditions, such as strong currents, rip tides, pollution, etc.   Why is there nothing from Seascale up to St. Bees and beyond?   The authorities are aware that particles are being found - it is they who are finding them, after all.   Is Dunster's experiment still continuing?

A cynic might believe that if the particles are out there, pose a potential health and safety risk, however small, then something, somewhere ought to be being done about it.   Instead, akin to poking a hornets' nest, NuGen are drilling holes in the area so it resembles something akin to Swiss cheese.   Amazingly, it would appear that they have not found any radioactive materials.   They stated at the outset that if any were found then they would cease operations.   Operations have not been halted.

Dump Criteria

Looking at the Energy Solutions website, we can see that they have a site at Clive, in Utah, U.S.A., where they store all the depleted uranium from obsolete weapons.   The specification for the site is very interesting:

The Clive site lies on top of one of the most stable geological basins in the United States.   Layers of naturally occurring impermeable clay, which are necessary to safely enclose the waste, are in natural abundance.   The area surrounding the Clive Facility is also exceptionally arid with low precipitation and high evaporation.    The groundwater that does exist is twice as salty as ocean water, and therefore cannot be used as a source of drinking water or irrigation.

So, not a bit like Cumbria then?   The average rainfall is 3 metres per year in Cumbria, in Utah they have 470 mm.   See if you can spot the other differences.

Political Buck-passing

We wrote to the Office for Nuclear Development to report our concerns about the proposed intensification of rail use apropos the transport of nuclear materials - it being their responsibility.   Despite what the law appears to say, we were wrong, apparently.   It is the Office of Road and Rail.   The ONR are only responsible for the flasks containing the nuclear material.   What they actually said was:

Regarding the regulations relating to the movement of radioactive materials in the UK - ONR is the Great Britain (GB) Competent Authority (CA) and Enforcing Authority for the civil carriage of UN Class 7 (radioactive material) goods. The civil transport of radioactive material in GB is regulated under Part 3 of The Energy Act 2013 and The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure equipment Regulations (CDG) 2009. 

All duty holders (consignors, carriers, consignees) have legal obligations under the UNECE modal regs (ADR, RID and ADN) which are implemented in GB through CDG

ONR is the regulator and competent authority for the Flasks (Spent fuel packages) you refer to in your letter. These are assessed against International Requirements set by  UNECE modal regs and we review the operation and design of these packages on a periodic bases to ensure they still meet these standards.

ONR is not the regulatory for Network Rail, this is the responsibility of the Office of Rail and Road and you will need to direct your concerns about the condition of the track and infrastructure to them.

Previous experience with the ORR or Network Rail does not fill us with deep respect or faith in their desire, or ability, to do the right thing.   We may give it a try shortly.   Whatever else, the changes that NuGen are proposing will not improve safety along the line, nor will it improve the amenity for those who live close to it.   However, the final paragraphs say:

ONR’s Safety Assessment Principles include the principle that “The safety case should take account of any hazardous installations on or off the site that might be affected by an incident at the nuclear facility” (SAP ST.5).  This means that NuGen need to consider the potential impact of incidents at Moorside on safety at Sellafield throughout the development of the Moorside safety case and that Sellafield need to consider the potential impact of incidents at Sellafield on safety at Moorside during routine reviews of the safety case and the periodic reviews of safety that are required to be undertaken under Site Licence Condition 15.

In addition, both site operators are required to identify hazards from, evaluate risks of,  and mitigate against, radiation accidents (under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness & Public Information) Regulations) – and to review their assessments at least every three years and following any material change that may impact on their existing assessment.  Therefore, any external hazard that operations on one site present to the other shall be taken into account so that each operator shall take all reasonably practicable steps to prevent any identifiable radiation accident and limit the consequences of any such accident which should occur.

We make this observation in our Stage 2 consultation response.   It is sheer nonsense to even contemplate building the proposed "Moorside" site in the buffer zone designed to protect Sellafield's scandalously vulnerable site.
31/7/16  updated 13/8/16
DECC Moves in Mysterious Ways

We sent in a Freedom of Information request to DECC (as it waa back then) on the 16th June, 2016.   The subject was not directly connected with NuGen's project, but closely related to it.   Automatic response was received, assuring us that our request would be dealt with within 15 days, and thanking us for writing to them.   On the 22nd of July, having recieved nothing from DECC, we tried a reminder.   Another automated response, but then nothing.

We have now learned that the reason we received no answer was that the window was too wide.   We have now re-submitted the request with (for now) a narrower focus.   Answers by the 8th September, all being well.


Why Stop Moorside?

A quick summary of the points on which we have based our objections.   Most are expanded on in other articles.

1.      Flawed design which has no secondary containment

i.    Potential for corrosion in reactor vessel - exacerbated by the dampness and salty atmosphere from its position on the coast.

ii.    Would not withstand a terrorist attack, even with a concrete outer shell.

iii.    Untried and untested design - despite what the NuGen staff told the public at the Braystones consultation meeting, there are no AP 1000 reactors "up and running".

iv.    Reactor widely condemned as unsafe;  allegations that the design has cut corners to reduce costs.

2.     Environmental impact

The only way to dissipate the output of the thermal equivalent of 6 GigaWatts (6,000,000,000 Watts - the equivalent of 2,000,000 three-bar electric fires) is via direct discharge to the atmosphere/environment.   In essence, a tremendous amount of heat needs to be got rid of, either by heating the air considerably, or by warming the Irish Sea considerably;  neither are likely to have a beneficial effect.   See the article on the FACTs page, entitled, "Further Thoughts on Cooling Towers", for more details.

NuGen have confirmed they do not know what impact discharging that amount of heat into the Irish Sea would have.   Attendees at consultations have regularly been given misleading, incomplete, conflicting or incorrect information.   e.g.   The disparate statements from two members of staff over the heating impact of the discharges were confusing.   Would it be 1 - 2° or 10 - 13°?

3.      No published financial data

Are NuGen going to gain from the Électricité de France (EdF) negotiations, which have been widely recognised as an extremely expensive and long-term commitment?

Would they gain the same £92.50 per kW/h?   This is 2½ times the current price of electricity.

The deal with Électricité de France guaranteed this level of income, index linked, for 50 years.   Have NuGen been promised the same?

What subsidies and guarantees have the U.K. government made to NuGen and are the EU authorities aware of them?

Where is the money coming from for the new-build and all the additional resources - NuGen or the British taxpayer?

Toshiba recently had to admit to overstating their profits by $1,220,000,000 - a fact known about by top management who were subsequently obliged to resign in disgrace.   Are they deserving of our trust to build and supply our power?

4.      Lack of Planning

The proposed site is immediately alongside "the most dangerous chemical works in Europe".   An event at either could have devastating and exponential effect.

How would the alarm systems be made distinctive & recognisable?

Any changes to the topography and ground-water flow may have an adverse effect on the SSSIs that are based on singular hydrological phenomena.

It is not possible to foresee all consequences and mitigate against them.

NuGen propose mitigation for animals, but none is mentioned for residents.

5.     The proposed sites are contaminated by radioactive material

Land contamination at the adjacent Sellafield/Calder Hall/Windscale site amounts to 13,000,000 cubic metres of soil.   The contamination is not likely to have been restricted to just those sites, but would also have affected the Moorside site, with the potential for affecting construction workers and local communities.

At least one aquifer near Sellafield is known to be radioactively contaminated.   Digging large holes in its vicinity may change ground-water flow.

The two harbours proposed, together with the cooling water pipelines, are in the area where the highest number of finds of radioactive materials occurs.   The disturbance of these sediments, sands and soils would inevitably pose a risk of more radiation-related illnesses amongst residents and workers.   Furthermore, the area is a designated marine conservation zone.   The immediate area affected is the only remaining section of undeveloped beach and is admired by visitors and holiday-makers from all over the country.

Details of the larger of the two harbours are not made known clearly.  

Enquiries produced the statement that only the smaller one would be permanent - but the larger one may in fact, also become permanent, according to yet another of NuGen’s expert consultants.   

6.    Unnecessary development of amenities

The alleged “improvements” to the area are unnecessary and only of benefit to NuGen and its potential employees.   Existing resources are mainly adequate for the current usage by locals and visitors.  

The development would kill off the tourist industry, in the same way that visitors are already deterred by Sellafield.

The current landscape is natural and cannot be "improved" by anything that NuGen designs.

The development would be a significant encroachment on the seascape and an ugly intrusion, visible for long distances, thus producing an even greater loss of visual amenity from land and sea.

7.     Outmoded concept

The large-reactor template is now to be superseded by smaller reactors which can be located nearer point of need, thus reducing transmission line losses and costs, major and expensive changes to the National Grid, while also providing more flexibility in the National Grid.

8.    The consultation process is flawed

Braystones beach residents (and others) failed to receive NuGen communications in a timely fashion.

The data from the current borehole survey would not be available until the consultation process has closed.

That the consultation has failed is evidenced by the small number of respondents:  0.5% of Copeland’s population.

9.    Infra-structure

Construction traffic - goods and personnel - would be using roads totally unsuitable for the traffic which would be generated and there are no means of by-passing any accident or incident which blocks the road.   

The current road situation cannot handle even a single exodus of staff during shift changes, so, should there be an "incident" – at either one or both sites, or if shift changes at Sellafield and Moorside coincide, it will be impossible for emergency vehicles to get through and departing staff and the public to escape the area.

A detour could require a 90 mile trip.

In the event of, say, heavy lifting equipment being required, or additional emergency services, it would take too long for them to get to the site.

Braystones residents have long complained about the state of the level crossing and railway infra-structure to no avail.   They have pointed out that the line still relies on an infra-structure designed by Stephenson over 160 years ago.  It is single-tracked and remotely controlled.   No attempt is made to address the danger.   None of the proposed railway spurs around the main site are included in the make-believe pictures provided by NuGen.

At Braystones, there have been 93 incidents between 5/1/10 and 3/4/15 (Network Rail data).   Is such a line suitable for nuclear transport?

Other incidents include derailments, bridge collapse under a chemical train which resulted in the destruction of two bungalows, and several landslips.  

There are still a number of complaints about the state of the railway line outstanding and unresolved.   The proposed changes would not improve that section of line.

Increased rail traffic will cause problems for those living alongside the line:   nuisance from greater and more frequent noise and vibration, more frequent and longer waits to cross the line.   Will trains run during anti-social hours?

10.    Ultimate Waste Disposal

There is no statement about the amount of waste that would be produced, nor its ultimate disposal.

It is likely that all high level waste would need to be stored on the site for at least 50 years.   This means that there would be an even greater spread of highly toxic materials with all that would attract a terrorist attack.

The sole means of disposal of highly radioactive waste is a GDF (Geological disposal facility - or underground dump.)   

Where is this dump?   None has been built, its location remains undecided, and its long-term ability to contain the high levels of radioactive materials is almost impossible to predict.   Even if one were built, the necessary treatment of such waste needed to enable its dumping, is proving impossible to achieve and of insufficient longevity.   

Statements about half-lives mislead.   No human-built structure has ever lasted the many tens of thousands of years over which some of the materials would remain dangerous and need to be kept safe.   For some of the products, the passage of one half-life is insufficient to render them safe, and some would need the expiration of several half-lives before they can be handled.      Ultimately, the underground dump would leak.   Is this a satisfactory solution – just leave it to other generations?   

NuGen's documentation (Consultation Document, Stage 2, May, 2016, P. 47, Para 5) envisages encapsulation in buildings which haven't yet been built and whose process is not adequate to make the waste safe for the entire time that some of it would remain dangerously active.   

Encapsulation does not endure indefinitely.   Eventually, the capsules break down and the radioactive materials enter the environment.   The higher the radioactivity contained in a capsule the shorter the lifespan of the encapsulation.

How would the waste be removed and transported to the envisaged encapsulation process and, ultimately, the underground dump?

When the inevitable leak occurs, deep underground and in a highly radioactive environment, how would it be resolved and who would clean it up?   By the time it was detected it would be too late anyway.

11.    Intrusive Nature of the National Grid Connection

The plan necessitates the construction of two chains of highly intrusive pylons several miles long in an area only just outside the Lake District National Park, and they, the Moorside site and the Sellafield complex would all combine to produce the effect of a highly-industrialised area in a totally inappropriate setting, and clearly detrimental to the Lake District National Park which is only a short distance away.

The attractions of natural long-distance landscapes and seascapes will be adversely affected.   Permanently.

12.    Distortion of Political and Social Scene

Suggestions have been published that the nuclear industry has been having an excessive influence on the area - from commercial, educational, social, and political standpoints.

When the need for construction workers abates, the area would become further depressed and unemployment would further exceed the national norm.

Housing stock proposed to be built would become redundant as workers move away, thus depressing house-prices.

More nuclear development means ever-greater dependency on it for the economy, to the detriment of other livelihoods.

13.    Overuse of natural resources

The site would demand copious quantities of water which would be drawn from a variety of sources.   Most of these contribute to the natural beauty of the Lake District landscape.   Water supply is already fully utilised.

14.     Impinges on basic human rights

NuGen should accept that their plans would have a devastating effect on residents during the construction and commissioning phases of the project and, effectively, for ever.   Just the announcement of the plans has blighted property prices and caused hardship, as well as feelings of stress, insecurity and instability.   It also seems likely that NuGen's plans would impinge on the human rights of residents, who are entitled to a peaceful enjoyment of their own homes

For the above reasons, we believe that the flaws in the consultation process, together with the above concerns, are conducive to an application for a judicial review.   Some of the failures and deliberate untruths must surely merit legal challenge, too.

When the nuclear plants have worn out, all that will be left for local Cumbrians is the toxic waste and spoilt and contaminated land.

The project at Moorside, if allowed to go ahead, is set to survive, in one form or another, for hundreds of years.   Its legacy would endure far beyond that, probably for millennia.   Is that really the best that west Cumbria can think of - to leave this dangerous, untreatable, toxic mess to perpetuity?   Surely we are better than that?


 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Benjamin Disraeli Crichton, 1965

Reading through the NuGen sales brochure - it is not possible to consider it a consultation document - may unintentionally give some a misleading impression.   We note elsewhere the questions posed, and express our incredulity at, the published figure of 73% in agreeing in response to "Do you agree with the need to develop a new nuclear power station at the Moorside search area?"   Then you consider the question:   Are respondents agreeing with the need for a new power station, that it needs to be nuclear, or that it needs to be at Moorside?   Or all three, or any combination of alternatives?   Then look at the published figure of 73% "in favour".   This is 263 people out of a mere 375.   NuGen's own documentation says that 12,000 people a day can be served in Sellafield's canteen, which is where NuGen held one of their meetings.   

Can the 73% figure allegedly in favour of one of the points in the question be extrapolated to represent a proper indication of the wishes of the general population?   No.   Yet that is how it is intended to be interpreted we believe.   Utterly deceitful.

How many thousands will be affected by the proposed development?   According to official statistics, in 2011 (the latest we can find) there were 70,603 Copeland residents.   So far then, NuGen have received responses from 0.5% of the residents and of them 263 people or 0.38% of the entire population of Copeland agreed.   Not quite as pro-nuclear as the NuGen version.   Some of the responses came from Allerdale residents who are virtually unaffected, but we have not included those in the calculations, to the benefit of NuGen's propaganda.

Then we have to question why the second most-pro-nuclear council in the land, Allerdale, has been included.   Adding in the 90,000 Allerdale residents to the above calculations roughly halves the above results.   Looking at the maps and reading list of changes NuGen are going to impose, if they have their way, it is difficult to see what impact, if any, the proposed development would have on those residents.   From the maps, there is no way of telling what connection the respondent has with the nuclear industry, or any obligation or benefit arising therefrom.   

Were the Allerdale respondents included to dilute the responses from those who object to the proposals?   Surely not.

However, such a low response to the consultation process does confirm our suggestion that the consultation is flawed and/or just not working.   Properly done a reasonable consultation could be expected to attract at least 30% of the population, engaging them sufficiently to prompt them to respond.   We believe that a proper census would reveal that the vast majority of residents would be against nuclear development, especially on such a large scale and of such longevity.  However, they have not been made fully aware of the impact of the proposed Moorside development.


Toshiba's Plans Branded "Unrealistic"
Nuclear Fallout After Referendum

The plans for Toshiba's nuclear development are "unrealistic", according to a Senior Analyst at Moody's.   The new CEO of Toshiba claims that the aims were achievable, despite having only taken over the job last week following the resignation of his predecessor after a $1.3 billion accounting scandal.   We wonder whether he really knows what is going on and whether he fully considered the ramifications of the exit of the U.K. from the European Union - including the fall of the pound on international markets.   This must surely mean that the cost of building Moorside will rise, making it even less viable in the longer term,

According to the article published by Reuters, "Given strong anti-nuclear power sentiment after the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 and delays in plant construction, we believe this target is unrealistic."


We agree with Reuters as the U.K.'s nuclear authorities criticise the progress made in rectifying the 51 faults in the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor.   (Westinghouse is owned by Toshiba.)   They are also concerned about the quality and tardiness of the associated paperwork.   Still, we are supposed to believe that they are on schedule.   We shall see.   How long before the first delays are announced and how big will be the increases in construction costs.

In our article on the Facts page, "A Matter of Trust", we mention that "
Sources said previously that one of the investigators' theories was that top executives, worried about the impact of the 2011 Fukushima disaster on nuclear business, set unrealistic targets for new operations such as smart meters and electronic toll booths."   Seems like they are never going to learn.   Let us hope Toshiba have stopped cooking the books and won't need to cut any more corners on the AP1000 design.   In any case, given the number of similar reactors that Toshiba are hoping to build around the globe, won't there be difficulties meeting the need for specialist steels, construction materials, control circuitry, and skilled manpower?

Out of interest, Hitachi, who were planning on building a couple of nuclear power stations, including Wylfa, have said that they will have to "take stock and assess the situation".

Hitachi's official statement says:  "A potential departure from the EU creates uncertainty in terms of economics, trade, skills and talent - particularly in manufacturing, and would affect the stability that we need for continued investment and long-term growth."


The referendum result caused losses of $2,000,000,000 for investors.   The worst single-day losses in history.   Amazing that Toshiba aren't affected.   Britain's sovereign debt credit rating was lowered by Standard and Poor's agency.   Also downgrading the U.K.'s financial status are Fitch and Moody's.  So, no problems with £multi-billion investments, eh?   It is therefore difficult to understand why some parts of that other really stupid idea, HS2, may not be built.   So 200 mph into a field somewhere in Staffordshire, perhaps?

The other interesting thing is the reaction to the departure from the EU on the part of our erstwhile firiends.   Hopefully their attitude will cause the politicians here to look at who our friends really are - after all, we were going to share so much with them all - and pay them for the pleasure!


Does issuing reams of propaganda and sales literature, lining the walls of the consultation venues with huge propaganda posters and making statements that try to persuade people the matter of building a nuclear reactor is already done and dusted and the public can like it or lump it, constitute a meaningful version of consultation?   We think not.

The engagement of a PR firm to do their dirty work for them does not excuse NuGen from their obligations to properly consult.   This is about a development which is, after all, going to seriously impose on Cumbria for at least 100 years and probably an awful lot more.   PR companies are glorified salesmen, interested only in pleasing their client and obtaining their fees.   They are not people in a position to explain the full impact of the proposals on the amenity, environment and lifestyle, of thousands of residents.

There should be a moratorium on new nuclear building at least until the industry can demonstrate (not just theorise) that they can deal with the waste they produce and keep it safe from the environment and terrorists.

Please take a look at, where NuGen have published "illustrative impressions" of the proposed site.   They are noteworthy for omitting the Sellafield site in its entirety and, according to the illustration, the entire site appears to be unfenced.   Still, they say they will build a (radioactive?) mud wall.   According to our memory, there used to be a railway line between the site and the sea - where on earth can that have disappeared to?   This is an electricity generating plant, yet there doesn't seem to be any way of connecting to the national grid on the pictures.   So, why are the National Grid people saying that they need 150' high pylons stretching across the landscape?   Surely this propaganda is not intending to mislead or be dishonest in any way?

Also minimised is the building of a power station, presumably to supply emergency power.   What fuel will this be using and will its pollution include CO2?   Does that CO2 get counted in the list of nuclear pollutants, or does it, like so many other parts of the cycle, get ignored in order to perpetuate the myth that nuclear is in the slightest bit clean?

The proposed works include the marine off-loading facility, which we would call a harbour, and the circulating water system, which we would call submarine radiators, which will provide cooling water from the Irish Sea.   They can only do that by exchanging the heat generated by the reactors for cooler water - which means, of course, that the sea will become a lot warmer, especially in localised areas and during the summer months when there are relatively few storms to circulate the waters.   There is no mention of the impact that dissipating twice the thermal output of the reactors into the confines of the Irish Sea will have, either locally or globally.    On the same page as the illustration above, NuGen continues that it may be necessary to regulate the use of the marine off-loading facility (replete with inappropriate capitalisation to make it seem impressive) and waters around it "in order to provide a safe marine management environment, so the DCO [Development Consent Order] Application is likely to include a request for powers to establish a Harbour Authority".   No mention is made of the proposed longevity of this proposed harbour, nor any indication as to why marine management - safe or otherwise, depending on viewpoint - might be necessary.

As well as the reactors themselves there will be "support buildings, a substation and a circulating water system (including a forebay) [whatever one of those might be!] using water from the Irish Sea."   Happily, earthworks required to "accommodate temporary laydown areas and bunds (to be re-profiled postconstruction) for screening, noise reduction and landscaping" will protect everyone from any unpleasantness.   (Won't the soil be contaminated from the 1957 Sellafield fire?)  The blurb continues, "Elsewhere on the identified development site there will be replacement habitats, environmental offsetting, common land replacement, flood plain compensation (if required) and Public Rights of Way (“PROW”) diversions and other amenity diversions."   As well as the capitalised marine off-loading facility, NuGen will build a bridge across the River Ehen floodplain and (note the inappropriate capitals - so, again, it must mean something grand) a Heavy Haul Road, and new rail spurs and facilities.  Several new roads in the area are also planned.   When it comes to drainage, everything will magically disappear down a grid into the Irish Sea.   Will it be checked for radioactivity before being discharged?   Fresh water needs have yet to be achieved, but the River Ehen and a few local lakes might become somewhat smaller in the future.

Having spent some considerable time reading the sale pitch supplied at the Braystones meeting, and knowing how people we have spoken to are so against the project, it was somewhat surprising to read the overwhelmingly positive view expressed by so many people, to questions like:

Do you agree with the need to develop a new nuclear power station at the Moorside search area?   73% in favour.

Do you agree with our transport strategy for the Moorside Project being rail-focused to minimise road usage, particularly at peak times?   (88%)

The maps depicting the origin of the responses being analysed provided no clues of course.   Then we recalled reading an earlier paragraph where a meeting had been held in Sellafield's canteen.   Now where else would you expect to find such supportive evidence?   NuGen say that up to 12,000 people use the canteen each day.   We also have to wonder why Allerdale council are being given such a strong role, but then remember that Copeland and Allerdale were the only councils in the whole of the U.K. that wanted to host the nuclear dump.   Allerdale are as pro-nuclear as Copeland.   You can supply your own reasons for that distortion.

At the end of May, in Keswick, 90% of the people spoken to by representatives of Radiation Free Lakeland were opposed to new nuclear build in Cumbria.   As Ms. Birkby point out, this does not tally with what NuGen are saying, which is that “Cumbria wants new nuclear build.”   She goes on, "A recent poll in the Evening Mail indicated that 85% of those voting do not want new nuclear build in Cumbria.   Tourists said they would think twice about coming to Cumbria if dangerous new nuclear reactors were built here."


You just have to love the marvellous lack of vocabulary that the presumably very expensive, but not very knowledgeable, PR firm staff seem to have.   Apart from the unnecessary capitalisation mentioned, they invent new words, for example, "signalised" to describe changes to road junctions.   Unknowledgeable?   Well, we haven't yet received any answers to any of the questions posed.   Either they don't know, or 'wait and see' seems to be the response.

Amusingly, the propaganda goes on to mention the various improvements that will result to the environment as a result of becoming home to even greater nuclear hazards than those already extant:   completely ignoring the fact that the area is naturally beautiful and wouldn't need any of the enhancements that NuGen are proposing if it weren't for NuGen.   Should we really be grateful?   The losses will be far greater than the gains in our opinion.   As we have always said, improvements in road and rail links, health services, education, sports facilities, leisure facilities, skills and training are the job of government and local politicians to provide, not the carrot at the end of the stick in a blackmail arrangement.   Even so, we are at a loss as to understand how and why they think they can improve the visual amenity, or why there needs to be investment in landscape and townscape to improve the visual appearance of the area.   Better than God then?   How does the imposition of their great ugly mess, complete with the destruction of a huge swathe of rural lifestyle, compounded by its proximity to Sellafield, actually fit into their propaganda?

NuGen's Misleading Picture Sellafield from the air.

What a misleading picture is the one on the left above, scanned from NuGen's propaganda - sorry information sheet.   An object lesson in how to mislead the public without words.   This was once a beautiful area, but then came Sellafield's ugly and dangerous sprawl.   Now they propose to add this in the farmland to the upper left of the Sellafield picture.  So determined are NuGen to mislead the public, missing are the two harbours (aka Marine Off-loading Facilities), the railway line - with new spurs into the site, and not least for a power generating site, no indication of the hundreds of 150' high pylons that will have to be built in order to take away the produced electricity.   Or is that little arrangement, which might possibly be a pylon, in the bottom left truly indicative of the impact?   Isn't it at the incoming power end, rather than the main National Grid connection end?

Where is the road access and "Heavy Haulage Road" mentioned elsewhere in the glaringly misleading guff?

One wonders, too, where the fresh water supplies and site drainage facilities are, but perhaps they are too unsightly to be shown.

It is also difficult to reconcile this with other pictures offered in other NuGen literature, which we must presume are solely the product of a fevered artist's imagination.

The cooling water pipes, we assume, are depicted at top right, but seem to be inadequate for the purpose of cooling three reactors, surely?   We note what are possibly the cooling water ponds open to the atmosphere, with all the potential for leakage and environmental impact that that implies.   Not only that, but surely, if there are no unshown boundary works, there will be absolutely no protection from either coastal erosion or the winter storms.   Yet for the last three years there have been huge storms over winter, and this design is supposed to endure for over 120 years!  

So much is missing the whole thing is a travesty.   Still, at least by doing it from on high they have minimised the vertical intrusion - the reactor vessel alone is 91' high.  

Let's issue a challenge to NuGen:  get your artist off his waccy baccy, give him/her the true plans -- with all the conveniently missing bits like cooling towers and pylons.  
Give instructions that the impression must show  how it looks when added to Sellafield, and let them be drawn from, say, Cold Fell.  

Let's see how intrusive this proposal really is.

Let's issue a challenge to NuGen:  get your artist off his waccy baccy, give him/her the true plans- with all the conveniently missing bits like cooling towers and pylons, how it looks when added to Sellafield, and let them be drawn from, say, Cold Fell.   Let's see how intrusive this proposal really is

We wonder, too, about Westinghouse's claim that it achieves "
The highest levels of safety" when it relies "100% on natural forces for indefinite passive core cooling".  

According to nuclear power expert, Arnie Gundersen (, if anything should cause the reactor vessel to be breached, natural convection currents will dissipate not only the heat,
but also the entire contents over a very wide area, as there is no further method of containment.


Sorry, In The Heat of The Moment We Missed Something:
Deceipt By Omission

Our attention has been drawn to the following passages in Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, Volume 1:

Ref.: Scoping Opinion FINAL.pdf

2.24 Cooling water for the power station is proposed be drawn from the Irish Sea via an intake structure (or structures) mounted on the sea bed.   The water would then be conveyed via a tunnel (or tunnels) under the sea bed to the power station via a forebay structure (a large balancing tank).   A pumping station would be used to overcome the head difference.

2.25 Cooling water would be returned to the sea via a dedicated outfall tunnel, located under the seabed.   It is likely to be within 2 to 6 km offshore, but sufficiently far from the intake(s) to prevent recirculation of the returned cooling water.   The Scoping Report states that it is anticipated that cooling water demand will result in the intake and discharge of approximately 45 cubic metres per second (cumecs) of water per reactor. The three reactors will generate a total demand of approximately 150 cumecs, which will be discharged into the marine environment.

2.26 The Scoping Report states that a range of process effluents and surface water drainage from the operational power station are also likely to be discharged into the sea with the cooling water.

No matter how much water they are pumping through the system, the fact remains that they have to dissipate huge amounts of heat, either directly into the atmosphere via the cooling towers, or into the Irish Sea via the under-sea heat exchangers (radiators in effect).   CO2 is not the sole producer of global warming.   Direct heat cuts out the middleman, but it is surely just as effective as heat produced by CO2.

As with the developments listed in the foregoing article, there is no sign of cooling towers in any of the literature.   We consider this to be dishonest and deliberately misleading.   The usual design of tower associated with nuclear power stations is known is a hyperboloid cooling tower.   They are generally between 330' and 660' high.   So, very prominent then.   Why are they missing from the "indicative view of the Moorside site" supplied by NuGen?   It is certainly indicative of the misleading information on offer to the public.   How could a professional artist miss two harbours and at least one, probably more, cooling tower from his "impression" if it is intended to convey any idea to the general public.   The latter are in for a very nasty shock when they wake up and find two harbours, two (at least) sets of extremely high pylons striding across the countryside, conveniently just missing - but still plainly intrusively visible from - the Lake District National Park, and a couple of cooling towers rising to over 300'!

One might think cooling towers are innocuous things, merely using water to get rid of unwanted heat.  
However, if seawater is used (convenient when near to the coast), the drift of fine droplets emitted from the cooling towers contain nearly 6% salt, which is deposited on the nearby land.   According to Wikepedia:  

"This deposition of sodium salts on the nearby agriculture/vegetative lands can convert them into sodic saline or sodic alkaline soils depending on the nature of the soil and enhance the sodicity of ground and surface water. The salt deposition problem from such cooling towers aggravates where national pollution control standards are not imposed or not implemented to minimize the drift emissions from wet cooling towers using seawater make-up.

"Respirable suspended particulate matter, of less than 10 micrometers (µm) in size, can be present in the drift from cooling towers.   Larger particles above 10 µm in size are generally filtered out in the nose and throat via cilia and mucus but particulate matter smaller than 10 µm, referred to as PM10, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems.   Similarly, particles smaller than 2.5 µm, (PM2.5), tend to penetrate into the gas exchange regions of the lung, and very small particles (less than 100 nanometers) may pass through the lungs to affect other organs.   Though the total particulate emissions from wet cooling towers with fresh water make-up is much less, they contain more PM10 and PM2.5 than the total emissions from wet cooling towers with sea water make-up.   This is due to lesser salt content in fresh water drift (below 2,000 ppm) compared to the salt content of sea water drift (60,000 ppm)."

If that isn't worrying enough, the entry then continues:

"Being very large structures, cooling towers are susceptible to wind damage, and several spectacular failures have occurred in the past.   At Ferrybridge power station on 1 November 1965, the station was the site of a major structural failure, when three of the cooling towers collapsed owing to vibrations in 85 mph (137 km/h) winds.   Although the structures had been built to withstand higher wind speeds, the shape of the cooling towers caused westerly winds to be funnelled into the towers themselves, creating a vortex.   Three out of the original eight cooling towers were destroyed, and the remaining five were severely damaged.   The towers were later rebuilt and all eight cooling towers were strengthened to tolerate adverse weather conditions.   Building codes were changed to include improved structural support, and wind tunnel tests were introduced to check tower structures and configuration."

Let's hope that there are no corners cut to save on costs at Moorside.

See the Facts page for more thoughts on the subject.

Sellafield from Moorside A trick they missed . . .
A view of the Sellafield site from the north.  
The farmland in the foreground is where they are proposing to dig to install Moorside.   Note Black Combe and Corney Fell in the background;  round to the left are the lakeland fells and some of the highest mountains in England, including Scafell Pike, Great Gable and Lingmell, with the Langdale Pikes also visible.    
Did they miss a trick?  

After all, if they really wanted to capture the hearts as well as the minds of the children in the area, then this might have been a better piece of propaganda.

Even the 6,400 at peak employees will have to come from outside the area, so the "virus" that has caused so much trouble with cancers and leukaemia in the area will become even more prevalent.   If it isn't really a "virus", but down to the pollution from nuclear power plants, how many more cancers and radiation-related illnesses can we expect?   How many cases before it becomes intolerable?   Radiation is known to cause cancers and leukaemia, so that is where our beliefs lie.   The disturbing of age-old discharges cannot be considered sensible or safe under any circumstances.

Last year there were only just over 4,000 unemployed people in the whole of Cumbria.   It seems likely that many of them would not have the skills required to perform technical tasks to the level required in this project.
NuGen will be helping "improve" the towns in the area, too, apparently.   If the buildings designed by the people working for Sellafield in the area are anything to go by, then we can look forward to modern blocks which will have no connection whatsoever with the characterful Georgian style of Whitehaven and its hinterland.   In yet another artist's impression, this time of the main entrance, there seems to be a high fence between the car park and the main part of the site.   The fence seems to be higher than the single-storey office block!   Funny it doesn't appear on the other pictures.

Funny how the old Pow Beck failed so spectacularly, yet is now available for NuGen to build on.   Almost as if it were preordained.   Same old lead planner, too.

Still, we will have the benefit of cycling and walking connectivity, supply chain opportunities, training, and everything else that even retired people would regard as Utopia, but don't we already have sufficient for our needs?   Who will be the main beneficiaries?   NuGen staff, perhaps?   So, no NuGen, no need . . .    Why are they trying to con us this way?

The cultivation and nurturing of local politicians is certainly paying off handsomely.   (Play your cards right and you could end up with an MBE, or even better a well-paid job with, er, Nugen.)   How many of these people are in some way beholden to the nuclear industry?   Anywhere else in the country would be up in arms about the ideas that are being presented by NuGen as a fait accompli.   Here they are being welcomed.   Why?   Even if there are no "incidents" - a euphemism if ever there was one - the nuclear industry continually produces, and in some cases discharges, considerable amounts of the most toxic materials in the world.   How can they be allowed to do this?


Social Services?

We have examined the sales brochures supplied by NuGen to sell the idea that the scheme is a fait accompli and that the great majority of people are in favour.   We remain unconvinced.

Nothing appears in the brochures to explain how many people will really be coming into the area.   We are told that the peak number of workers will be 6,500.   We know that the majority of these will be from outside Cumbria.   Presumably they will be bringing with them family and, perhaps, friends.    Let us assume that the national norm of a partner and some children will be brought in with the breadwinner;  this means that there will be around 1300 adults.   Families, according to national statistics are comprised of two adults and an average of 1.8 children - further 5,200.   In total then, 18200 new residents can be expected to arrive.   Rather more substantial than NuGen's figures.

The next glaring omission is any suggestion as to how the requisite increases in health and social services provision will be achieved.   Presumably there will be a need for sexual, physical and mental health service to be greatly increased to meet the likely demand.   How many extra GPs will be required and from whence will they come?   Similarly with all the emergency services.   More police, ambulance and fire service personnel and equipment will be required.

Will the 5,200 additional children all manage to find places in schools, colleges, etc.?

All this seems to indicate that those clever people in London, encouraged by the blinkered NuGen personnel, have completely misunderstood how the rural community is made up.   This is a place where we currently have four trains a day - not four every three minutes - on none at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.   The roads do not permit emergency vehicles to travel at great speeds, and blue lights and two-tone horms have little benefit down our kind of road.

One of the basics of human rights is the supply of clean pure water.   NuGen are expecting United Utilities to come up with an answer to their needs - presumably following Sellafield's example of not paying for anything either.   Yet United Utilities do not magically produce water on demand.   It has to come from a stream, river, well, or spring. in a treatable form.   Because of the great reliance on water to places like Moorside, the supply has to be guaranteed under all circumstances.   For this area it will mean pipelines being laid, tapping into a canalised and covered River Ehen, even greater quantities being extracted from the local lakes.   (We note that NuGen are suggesting they could tap into Sellafield's supply-line, which would mean further vast drainage of Wastwater, recently voted the most beautiful view in Great Britain.)   Wherever it comes from or goes to once used, the impact on the environment is not going to be good.   Such schemes may benefit those who live in towns and cities far away who want electricity to waste, but, rest assured, Cumbria is not going to be enhanced by any of these proposals.

NuGen documentation "does not include an assessment of the potential likely significant environmental effects of the Freshwater Water Supply".   How convenient.

Ref.:  Moorside Stage 2 Consultation Document.   May, 2016,   Item 5.9

We mention elsewhere the unsuitability of the transport network and roads.   There is considerable congestion at peak hours already, even with only the Sellafield traffic.   Nowadays, 40% of families have second cars, so around another 9100 cars may be expected to add themselves to the traffic jams.   This is without construction traffic and heavy loads.

Off The Rails

NuGen have grandiose plans for railway "improvements", working with Network Rail.   Well, good luck to them on that venture.   We have been "working with Network Rail" for most of the last decade trying to bring the Braystones level crossing up-to-date.   Virtually nothing of any consequence has changed, despite residents averting a passenger train derailment observed by an inspector from the Office of the Rail Regulator.   Sadly, the latter individual didn't recall hearing the train driver explain why he hadn't received the urgent message from the Sellafield signaller:  "We got a garbled message over the radio, but couldn't understand it, so decided to continue on to Sellafield to find out what the problem was.   Radio signals are always rubbish on this stretch".   This, of course, meant that to get to the signaller he would have passed over the very section that was likely to cause the train to derail.   On the FACTS page of this site we have included a photograph of an accident caused by the failure of a small girder bridge that had badly corroded.   As a result of the bridge's collapse a railway wagon and load - somewhere around 70 tonnes - dropped off the embankment and completely demolished two bungalows.   By pure good chance they were both empty at the time.   A slightly different time would have resulted in several fatalities.

Braystones Residents’ concerns include:

1) The antiquity of the signalling and train-control system. This is 160 years old and does not comply with modern safety standards. It puts crossing users at risk and would be difficult to justify in the event of an accident, especially when seen in the light of modern technological advances. These advances include radar detection of the presence of people, vehicles, and other obstructions. Such a modern system would automatically inform all parties – users, signallers, and train staff – of the status of the crossing, and is available now.

2) Failure to provide lighting at the crossing after the passage of the last scheduled train. Such a system would be automatic, cheap, and in compliance with ORR safety literature.

3) The stability of the banking on the landward side of the track.

4) The integrity of the bridge to the north of Braystones. Not just from the stream that washes its foundations, but the amount of water that seeps through the block-work.

5) The physical requirements of the operation of the crossing gates and the unreliability of the telephone communications system.

6) The state of the ballast due to poor drainage at Braystones station.

7) Failure to achieve any material safety changes at the crossing, despite several years of lobbying by Braystones Beach residents, individually and collectively.

8) A survey needs to be conducted to assess whether the angles of the embankments is suitable for the level of stability required of them.

9) Assessments need to be conducted to assess the impact of the corrosive salt atmosphere on an infra-structure now over 150 years old and which has received scant attention in that time.

10) Network Rail should undertake a more positive rôle when it comes to protecting its assets and ensuring the safety of residents and crossing users.

Nugen's plans do not resolve any of these.   Even the onus for protecting the proposed new nuclear site is on Network Rail.   The idea being that it will be Network Rail's responsibility to maintain the sea defences in the event of storm damage.   Only when Network Rail give up will NuGen think about it.

Residents now have additional questions:   how much extra traffic are they supposed to endure;  what mitigation can there be against the noise and vibration of frequent heavy railway trains;  will the more frequent passage of trains mean that beach residents will have to spend considerably longer each day awaiting permission to cross;  will there be trains during anti-social hours?

The Braystones level crossing has 65,312 vehicle crossings a year - substantially more than the 23,180 suggested by a brief assessment by Network Rail.   (Figures from Network Rail.   FOI request for Sellafield signaller's log.)   Between 5/1/10 and 3/4/15, there were 93 incidents at the crossing.   Increased traffic will surely mean increased incidents.   As we have said from the beginning, a single accident involving a nuclear train will cost far more than bringing the line up to current standards.   We posed the question:  if you were building a line here today would you build it like this?   There was no answer.

Due to our concerns, we have written to the Office for Nuclear Development for their opinion, as they are responsible for enforcing the legal requirements for the transport of hazardous materials [e.g. nuclear loads].

Helping With Global Warming - How?

The consultation meeting at Braystones was held yesterday.   A strange mix-up of expert opinion we thought.   Firstly, questioned about the heat exchanger, one "expert" categorically stated that there would be a 12° differential.   We think this a bit strange, as there seems to be no information on where the rest of the superheated water is going to lose its heat.   Moving on to a different "expert" produced the opinion that the differential will be 2° to 3°.   The first expert was brought over to confirm his statement.   The second was adamant he was correct.   We never did reach an amicable resolution, so came away with no improved knowledge.   No ideas emerge as to how to resolve the matter, either.   We would have thought that the re-circulating coolant would need to dissipate an awful lot more than even 14°, which is the figure mentioned in the official information.

Nevertheless, such a large area of the sea being heated by between 2° and 12° must surely bring environmental effects.   Oddly, no-one seems to know (or care!) quite what those effects will be.

Harbouring Doubts

NuGen have been quite evasive about the "marine off-loading facility".   Now, it appears, there is a good reason.   There are going to be two of them.   One will be very large and intrusive to facilitate deeper draught vessels at all states of the tide, while the second one will be smaller and only of use at limited times.   We were assured that the larger one would be dismantled and taken away after the building of the project at Moorside was completed.   The second one will become a permanent feature.   Has anyone seen any environmental impact assessment to determine the outcome and effects of these resources?   We certainly haven't.   The larger harbour was not on the plans presented at the consultation meeting, but, after persisting, we were offered a version of the plan on a memory stick.   No explanation was forthcoming as to why the main harbour was not on the demonstrated plans.   Surely, if one constructs a large barrier - whether for a harbour or as pipework for cooling water - there will be an impact on the tidal flows and hence the deposition of sands and silts?   Will there be an impact on the holiday beaches of Braystones and beyond, once the tidal flow has been stopped, or at least diverted out to sea?   What will happen to all the radioactive toxins that are at present buried under those sands and silts.

Please view the Radiation Free Lakeland ( and Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment ( sites.   The latter has an article about the quality and tardiness of the process of obtaining generic design approval which concludes:

. . . at the only four twin-reactor stations currently under construction, two in the US and two in China, build-time for the AP1000 reactors is taking over seven years – with criticism levelled at Westinghouse as having ‘oversold the system, oversold the technology and promised more than they could really deliver’.  Despite this chronic overseas experience, NuGen  and West Cumbria’s nuclear-compliant media continue to peddle the myth that, with a construction start in 2020,  Moorside’s triple reactors will all be producing electricity by 2026.


The site also points out that, despite Westinghouse's sales pitch saying that the technology is "tried and tested", in fact these reactors have not been built anywhere else in the world.   That could explain the problems obtaining Generic Design Approval.   It is a bit worrying to read that the matters that are of concern to the Regulators relate not only to the major GDA components of the reactor’s structural integrity and its mechanical engineering as well as - and we especially like this, as it confirms our assessment of NuGen's work - the Quality of Submissions.   The regulators’ concern is that, for some of the aspects there remains significant technical and closure programme risks associated with completion of the work.   They go on to say that the quality of submissions are significantly below expectations in terms of scope and/or quality.   According to the article on CORE's site, in the regulators’ view, "a combination of these unresolved issues and any inevitable GDA slippage caused by them, will affect regulatory confidence in the subsequent site development programme."

Combined with the various other failures to achieve even basic credibility, it might seem that legal challenges to the whole enterprise could be successful - whether in the U.K., or in the E.U.   CORE also point out that the core sampling that is currently being undertaken by the platform off Braystones will not be completed before the end of the current consultation process, so how can people digest and comment on the results?   Yet another failure of their consultation process and another opportunity for legal challenge, we think.

The CORE website also has news that, even before the build at Moorside is scheduled to begin, it will be at least two years late.   The former site, Radiation Free Lakeland, is so comprehensive and has so much information that it is a bit difficult to digest it all in one sitting.  

Our favourite bits from that one include the 2014 letter from the Whitehaven News about the Sellafield Mafia as they are known, which confirms our views on the corrupting nature of the industry, and the role of the local and national politicians:  (   Although aimed at the dump consultation, the principles seem to apply to nuclear development throughout the area.   
This is followed by the way in which the hundreds of bore-holes currently being drilled were approved after decidedly limited consultation with local parishes and committees, except Copeland Council, who were too busy debating the impact of a single wind turbine, apparently.   The ultimate decision was made by a single, delegated council officer.   Democracy?


Political Inaction

For over a year now residents affected by the proposed Moorside development have been seeking information as to what the impact will be on their homes.   On the 6th April enquiries were made of the local MP, Jamieson Reed, who is, of course, an ex-Sellafield employee and pro-nuclear.   As the properties are mainly on land leased from Leconfield Estates, similar enquiries were made of them and their solicitors.   Only after a reminder did we receive information from the latter two bodies, advising us that they knew nothing more than we did.   After a month, Reed's office eventually managed to send us an e-mail saying that our enquiries had been passed to NuGen for their attention and we would be contacted again when a reply was received.   The result being that, despite the passage of over two months, nobody has supplied us with any information at all.

 A formal complaint has now been lodged.   Twelve weeks should be plenty long enough for anyone to come up with a reply to such a straightforward question.

We Told You So

In our earlier articles (now consigned to the Archived Pages section - see top of page) we have pointed out the vulnerability of nuclear sites to terrorism and attacks by air - including the use of drones.  

In an article in the Scottish Herald, 29/5/16, Rob Edwards reports on two reports that say exactly the same thing.   The reports suggest that not only would the authorities struggle to deal with the aftermath of an attack, but they are also failing to consider the potential threats seriously.   Yet, the article says, in October, 2015, a worker was reportedly marched off the Hunterston nuclear site in North Ayrshire after he was seen studying bomb-making websites on his laptop.   The report by Dr. David Lowry who is a senior research fellow with the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, USA, and a former director of the European Proliferation Information Centre in London, points to “disturbing” evidence that suspects linked to the Paris and Brussels terror attacks in November, 2015, and February, 2016, had files on nuclear facilities, and had been monitoring nuclear workers.  

The second report was for the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), and was written by Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent radiation scientist, and focuses on the stable iodine tablets that can prevent radiation poisoning after some nuclear accidents.


Over-riding National Interest - or Just Over-riding Local Opposition?

With the inevitable assistance of politicians and councillors, this picturesque (provided you don't look towards Sellafield's ugly structures) part of Cumbria is the target of a foreign consortium who wish to build a vastly expensive and risky nuclear power station.   Immediately adjacent to the existing Sellafield site - literally just across the road - the project will blight the Braystones and Beckermet areas.  

Even the seas off Braystones and Nethertown are to be spoiled by the installation of sub-marine inlets and outlets which will dissipate the heat equivalent of 2,000,000 three-bar fires into the Irish Sea.   NuGen quite happily agree that they have no idea what the impact will be on the marine and terrestrial environments.   Rest assured it will not be a beneficial effect.   However, even ignoring - if you can - that aspect, the question must surely be how the dissipation of such large amounts of heat into the environment can in any way reduce global warming.   Ah, sorry, as the planet is actually getting colder, we now have to refer to it as climate change.   The disposal of waste is also still an unresolved problem.   Let us not forget that some of these chemicals will remain too radioactive to handle for millions of years.   Even the oft-quoted half-life times fail to indicate the length of time before they become "safe", as many will require several half-lives to pass before they can be deemed to be non-injurious, even to the strange and misleading ethics of the nuclear industry.

For reasons which patently have no regard to the practicalities or financial viability of nuclear sites, but may have a lot to do with shares and personal aggrandisement, the whole national planning system has been changed to enable politicians to dictate what will be built where and remove the local residents' right to object.   Let's face it, the kind of money that is involved in building a nuclear power station and its required resources - where the sums are listed in £billions - must be hugely attractive for those of a less than honest nature.   Fortunately, as yet, they have not managed to abandon the principles of the Human Rights Act, so there are obviously grounds there for legal challenge.   Can it be just a matter of time before the rumblings about doing away with such piffling trifles as public opinion come to fruition and the state takes on Orwellian control?

Nugen are now coming to the end of their mandatory consultation period over their proposals to build three Westinghouse reactors at the "Moorside" site.   The site extends from Sellafield to the perimeter of Beckermet.   It is obviously debatable quite how sensible is this proposal to gamble on never having an accident which will affect Sellafield and its great stocks of radioactive materials.

Last July we added our comments to NuGen's consultation process.   Hopefully it is a comprehensive document.   It can be found here:  
NuGen Consultation Response.   As the changes will bring about increased traffic along the old Furness railway line, the problems involving use of the level crossing at Braystones station are incorporated in our consultation response as additional material by means of sample correspondence.

With the collusion of various politicians - local and national - and peers, it seems the entire west coast of Cumbria is about to succumb to nuclear development, regardless of logic, financial sense, geology, or practicality.

There are many points which we would like answers to - including those in our consultation document.   One additional question would be :
  • How does the planned project fit with Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012.   The requirement (under Part 4, 10-1(c)(i &ii) is that when preparing their Local Plans, local planning authorities need to have regard to the prevention of major accidents and limiting their consequences. 
Also to be considered are the long-term need for appropriate distances between hazardous establishments, the population, or environmentally sensitive areas, and whether additional measures for existing establishments are required so that risks to people in the area are not increased.   Should a major incident occur at either Sellafield (which does have a certain history) there must inevitably be a risk of a domino-like impact on the projected plant, and vice versa.   Of course it has been deemed utterly impossible for both plants to suffer incidents simultaneously.   Leastways until it happens.
The National Grid suggests that it is far too expensive to bury cables, and that 150' high pylons are the only answer to get the power to London and elsewhere.   Yes, we can choose a design, and yes, they do allow a choice of route from three possible ones, but burial of the cables is not an option.   Yet the organisation has just tabled yearly results:  pre-tax profit rose 15% from the same period in 2015 to £3.03bn.   Adjusted earnings per share were up 10% to 63.5p, while adjusted operating profit increased 6% to £4.1bn and the company recommended a full year dividend of 43.34p compared with 42.87p the previous year.   (Ref.:  Common to most newspapers and news programmes.)   Is the pursuit of profit more important than the preservation of the environment and local amenity?   How much extra would burial of the cables cost when expressed in pence per kilowatt/hour over the lifetime of the programme?   (We have already pointed out that the only reason for the additional pylons striding across the landscape is the proposal to build Moorside.   Do away with that and the landscape can be preserved without any expense.)

One of the main planks of the argument for developing nuclear power has been "preventing the lights from going out".   Several years ago, at the time of the RWE application to build at Braystones, we reported the statement by the head of the National Grid, that there was no likelihood of the lights going out.   That statement was ignored, in typical "scare the public into submission" style that governments and politicians so like,   Unfortunately, perhaps by accident, the current incumbent of the Energy Minister post, Andea Leadsom, told a committee of MPs on 24/5/16 that there was no possibility of the lights going out.   (How many Energy MInister have we had in the last five years?)

Sadly DECC figures point to the fact that in actual fact, despite assertions by those who should know better (and in all honesty probably do!) that energy demand is rising, it fell again last year by 2%.   This means that overall the demand for electricity nationally has been falling for over a decade at more than 1% p.a.

The other main point, stemming from a meeting related in the book "Inside Sellafield", has been the impact of CO2 on the environment.   The management of Sellafield decided that they would promote the idea of a link between global warming and emissions of CO2.   Well, the strategy worked.   Yet few seem to ask whether the rise in CO2 levels causes a rise in temperature, or whether, in fact, the rise in temperature causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere.   Which is the horse and which is the cart?   It is noteworthy that most of the CO2 producing processes utilised to produce nuclear fuel, manufacture the components for the specialised build demanded by nuclear plant and ancillary equipment, transport of materials, manufacture of specialised steel, etc. are all ignored.   DECC specifically dismiss anything which occurs outside the U.K.

We have always asked whether CO2 emissions are worse than plutonium, polonium, caesium, americium and all the other products of a nuclear reactor which always seem to have problems not leaking into the environment for some reason.   Of course, the mantra is now well established:  no animals are hurt, the leak was contained before any damage was done, and there was never any danger.   The head of the U.K. nuclear industry, in a propaganda sheet entitled Britain's Energy Coast, tried to tell the world that there was no melt-down at Fukushima, when all three cores had melted.   A complaint to the Press Complaints Council was upheld and a retraction had to be published.   The gentleman tried to pretend that he hadn't known there had been a melt-down.   They knew enough to work with 
Électricité de France secretly in order to synchronise a cover-up and limit press and television coverage, aided by the I.A.E.A. - until they got caught out by the press.   Most people think the I.A.E.A. is an independent and honest body.   However, its aims are plainly stated on its website:  To work with its member states and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies.
31/5/16 edited 1/6/16
Deal Us Out

The Times, 31/5/16, carries an article on how ministers in charge of the £18 billion project at Hinkley - deemed by rational people to be a rather large white elephant - refuse to say whether the deal is good for taxpayers.

David Lowry's request on behalf of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies under Freedom of Information rules, was turned down as it would "adversely affect international relations, defence, national security or public safety"   Not to mention the price of beans.   Sadly, even the Information Commissioner backed DECC' s decision apparently.   It does rather seem that there may be something to hide by DECC in terms of whether Hinkley is good value for money.   Actually, we think it is not.   Any more than the "Moorside" one is.   Are there similar terms and conditions, government subsidies and underwriting available to NuGen, too?   Or aren't we allowed to know that, either?

The organisation "Stop Hinkley" have just sent their newsletter, in that has a report which further illuminates the FOI request:
"The government said that anyone building new reactors in Britain must manage and pay for the cost of handling waste products, unlike the existing situation where all radioactive materials are effectively dealt with through the public purse via the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.   However, although the operator must agree to take responsibility for the spent fuel and other radioactive waste, the cost is expected to be passed on to the domestic electricity user through higher bills.

"Under the new arrangements, the prospective nuclear operators must enter into a waste transfer contract (WTC).   Those contracts, like the one covering Hinkley, must be submitted for scrutiny by the EC under its state aid rules.   It is the pricing methodology of the WTC that Lowry wished to review and which remains under wraps.

"John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said, “The government has repeatedly said that Hinkley is great news for the British public and our energy security. But they refuse to back this up with hard evidence. In fact, DECC is incredibly cagey and is failing to answer questions on where the dangerous radioactive waste will go or how much Hinkley will cost us.""

Ref.:   (Newsletter for June, 2016.)

On Railway Lines

Reading the above newsletter from Stop Hinkley, we were puzzled by the future event where they joined up with   An organisation of which we were previously unaware.   However, a quick look at their ideals has produced the following (their numbering, we have omitted those less relevant):

3.   The remaining nuclear power stations (PWR pressurised water reactors and AGR) should be shut down as they are a continuing source of radioactive pollution and waste, damage to health, and risks of accidents and terrorism.   [The Westinghouse AP1000 design for Moorside is a Pressurised Water Reactor - or PWR]

8.   Nuclear accidents require specialist treatment, so emergency services personnel need specific technical training to deal with such accidents as quickly and effectively as possible.


As part of the concerns about the level crossing at Braystones - with nuclear trains in both directions sometimes several times a day - we have pointed out that the cost of just one incident involving a nuclear flask train would probably exceed the cost of doing the right thing and making the line safe.
  Private Eye's Old Sparky did include some of the problems of the line in an article last year entitled "Coastal Fission" (transcript here).   While not 100% accurate, it does give a good idea of the parlous state of the line.   The new project apparently intends to continue using this line, even running spurs of it to service the site. The stopnucleartrains organisation points out that the nuclear flasks are designed to sustain a drop of 9 metres (29'), which must surely be somewhere near the drop off the Cumbrian coastal line.   Major risk areas include level crossings - where have we heard that before?   Braystones residents have been pushing for years to get better safety on the line.

See the article "Off The Rails", above.


More Reliable Than Wind?

In an article on the Herald Scotland website on 14th December, its environment correspondent Rob Edwards reports an analysis by nuclear consultant Pete Roche for 50 NFLA (nuclear-free local authorities) which reveals that the UK’s 15 reactors have had 62 unplanned shutdowns in the last three years, involving electrical, boiler and valve defects, fires, storms, vibrations and the discovery of tiny cracks.   When coupled with the hundreds of lucky escapes that nuclear sites, especially Sellafield, have had, we would undoubtedly be better off with the wind.
Mysterious Ways Sellafield's Wonders to Perform

The one-time manager at Sellafield, Harold Bolter, wrote a book entitled, "Inside Sellafield".   We have made a habit of pointing out the section in this book - which presumably is a true account of events from the time - that refers to the methods proposed in order to counter the bad publicity the nuclear industry was (deservedly) getting.   In particular the pushing of the role of CO2 in the alleged global warming.   (Subsequently changed to climate change.)   It was also decided that it was necessary to "capture the minds, if not the hearts, of younger children".   Obviously with the aim of inculcating them in the pro-nuclear doctrine.   (Something similar used to be referred to as brain-washing.)  

There can be little doubt that the aims of that meeting are now coming to fruition.   One local school, the West Lakes Academy in Egremont - about four miles from Sellafield - has the information that:

"We are sponsored by two of the most important energy organisations in the UK and two of Cumbrias largest employers;   The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Sellafield Ltd.   They provide invaluable resources and industry support to our specialism in Science."

How about that for capturing the minds if not the hearts of youngsters?

One of the more satisfying pastimes is to look at the manipulation of the local community by Sellafield's managers.   The above publication is a good example.   Another is Sellafield Stories, which we mention elsewhere, and which is where the management speak and practical matters diverge.   Also interesting is the way in which critics of Sellafield can become its staunchest supporters when money is an issue.   Several of the more able wordsmiths have started off being concerned about the practices that have occurred at Sellafield, but then have been persuaded (by money?) to work on the PR side of things.   They then become so blinkered by their own propaganda that they think anyone who dares contradict them is (quote) from the soft, fluffy, green end.   Each of the managers tells how they have considerably improved things, completely failing to see that it is too late - the toxicity of the materials that were being discharged into the atmosphere and environment have not gone away, but will continue to cause illnesses and cancers for decades, perhaps millennia, to come.   Even if one takes them at their word - why should we? -  the Irish Sea and beyond have already received enough to stay contaminated till the end of time.   Every child has plutonium in their teeth as a result of Sellafield and atomic bomb testing.   At least 50 kg of plutonium has been discharged into the Irish Sea, along with caesium, americium, et al.   Sellafield's contamination has reached Nova Scotia and beyond, and round the Scottish coast to Scandinavian countries.   How marvellous that they have reduced the amount they are discharging, but that doesn't make it alright.

These people also seem to have a distorted view of democracy and integrity.   One ex-senior manager boasts that he knew everyone and everyone knew him, so if he wanted a job done he just picked up the phone to chief executives of county councils, senior politicians, and things like that.   He is quoted as saying, "I think the reason I was so effective [here] is because I'd created a huge influence network in West Cumbria."

Ref.:    "Sellafield Stories", Edited by Hunter Davies, ISBN 978-1-78033-299-4

Is it us, or is this a form of corruption?   The more so, as Sellafield was holding a number of purse strings.   Another of the managers involved in PR work came from television and seems to suggest that he was offered a job at Sellafield because he had been critical in his reports on Sellafield.   Once in their thrall he seems to change his opinion, and nothing is as bad as was made out.   Sadly, there is no room to mention his part ownership of, and work for, a private PR company in its role as adviser to the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership, one of the many quangos set up to promote nuclear in Cumbria.


The Sellafield/Seascale/Braystones areas are no longer suitable for promotion in tourist guides, leastways without a radiation warning.   Fifty or so years ago, Seascale's beach was packed so tightly with holiday-makers, brought by six or eight coaches and several very full trains, that there was hardly room for one to put down a towel.   Sellafield certainly put paid to that.   Not to worry, it is outside the Lake District so Cumbria Tourism with their short-sighted policies do not need to worry.   From Sellafield to Wastwater is only about nine miles as the radioactive seagull flies.   Happily, the radioactive materials all recognise boundaries and do not go beyond the National Park boundaries.   Strange, then, that stuff from Chernobyl managed to cross all kinds of frontiers to end up on Cumbrian and Welsh hill-tops.   How convenient is that?   What a strange coincidence, too, that those were the very same areas polluted by, er, U.K. nuclear sites.

At a meeting of Cumbria County Council not long ago, of the 50 members present, 31 had to declare an interest when a matter involving the nuclear industry or Sellafield was to be discussed.   Again, how does this equate to democracy?

All of which suggests to us that Sellafield's policies, as laid down by the likes of Bolter, have been fully implemented.  

More Whiter Than White Politicians

Back in 2014, the brother-in-law of financial services minister Andrea Leadsom was reported to have donated £816,000 to the Conservative party since she first successfully ran for parliament at the last election.

The banker, who lives in Guernsey and is married to Leadsom's sister, Hayley, also made a further £1m of donations to a party-backed campaign and a rightwing think-tank.   Leadsom herself said that she was unaware of the donations made by a member of her own family, but a Labour MP asked whether the payments in effect amounted to a "cash for political office" arrangement.

It is amazing that such large sums are so mundane as to be unworthy of comment, even in a family environment.

Leadsom is now Energy Minister.


Last year, that august journal, Private Eye, noted that there may be a potential conflict of interest for Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.   She will be making the decisions about Hinkley Point C, while her brother is head of a company alled Finsbury, who have a £100 million contract to help build it.   Although questions were submitted, no answer was forthcoming, apparently.

None of this comes as any surprise, of course.   From the engagement of 
 Électricité de France staff as "advisors" through to the various relations of MPs and even the Prime Minister, we have had it all.   At least two politicians involved have been sent to jail for dishonesty.   See our 2015 article below, "Masters of Integrity".   Are we alone in thinking that anyone privy to inside information has a decided advantage in commercial terms and when they are also allowed to influence decisions, too, surely that is a form of corruption?   Is an Électricité de France staff member going to fail to pass on information to his employer, and will the employer be able to resist the temptation to direct advice which is ultimately to the benefit of that company?   All politicians seem to be happy to follow the official designation of "clean" when referring to nuclear generation.   One has to wonder how they can use this adjective when the source and wastes are so far from clean.   Sellafield has always, and continues to pollute the Irish Sea and beyond.   To any rational person (i.e. not a politician) the U.K. nuclear industry contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of the various agreements to stop dumping toxic materials at sea.   By the time the agreement came into force in 1998, the U.K. had dumped an unknown number of containers, totalling 74,052 tons at 15 sites in the north Atlantic, and at 18 sites off coast of British isles more than 9.4 TBq

The total amount dumped amounted to over 35,000 TBq - over 41% of the world-wide dumping.   It is only a matter of time . . .  


Weeding Out the Truth

In his book, "The Road to Little Dribbling", (ISBN 978-0-857-52234-4), writer Bill Bryson comments on the Hanford facility in Washington state.   He notes that the facility released millions of litres of liquid waste containing strontium, plutonium, caesium, and sixty three other dangerously toxic substances into the groundwater of the Columbia River basin.   Sometimes, he says, the releases were careless and accidental, but more often they were intentional.   He goes on, "The Hanford engineers did this and then shamelessly insisted the water was wholesome and clean, and cited tests on salmon as an example of how safe it was, arguing that a person would have to eat a hundred pounds of salmon at a sitting to ingest enough radiation just to reach detectable levels.   What they knew, but didn't say was that salmon don't eat when they are in the Columbia River."   He points out that the fish are returning to spawn, and don't eat when they are spawning.

Does this sort of behaviour seem familiar?   Has anything changed within the nuclear industry to win our faith in their openness and honesty.   Hardly.   Happily for our lot, the marine discharges were into the Irish Sea, and thus had more room to spread out, making it more difficult to discern where it had disappeared to - even if the scientists had any interest in finding it.   Nowadays, with modern methods, Sellafield's wastes can be detected in most of the waters from Nova Scotia to Sweden.   Even worse is that the site continues to dump radioactive materials, despite agreements, such as the London Agreement of 1972, which prevent dumping at sea.   The pipeline out from Sellafield continues to pump radioactive materials into the sea.   The agreement didn't mention pipelines.   Bryson points out that by the late 1980s, Sellafield had exposed the whole of Europe to more radiation than the combined levels of exposure from . . . all other nuclear sites, weapons testing, the Chernobyl incident, and packaged solid wastes."   Given that the greatest concentration is likely to be close to the point of origin, does it really make sense to be disturbing the soils and Irish Sea sediments to build another of these dangerous scientific dreams?

A while back we asked the Environment Agency why there were no longer any of the seaweeds that we remembered as kids on the rocks along the beach from Sellafield to Nethertown.   In particular the porphyria variety, which used to be collected by two ladies who lived on the beach at Braystones.   Several times a week the sacks of the seaweed were despatched by train to Wales to be made into laver bread.   Then the bakers discovered that Cumbrian seaweed was radioactive and contained sufficiently high levels of Sellafield's pollutants to make it unsafe to eat.   Unsurprisingly the practise ceased.   The official version, however, is that the ladies who collected it "became too old to continue".

We especially like Bryson's comment, "I am no expert, but it does seem on the face of it that human beings are not quite grown-up enough yet to be trusted with nuclear fuels."   In a Freudian slip, we almost wrote nuclear fools.

It does seem that the ultimate aim of scientists is the eradication of the human race.

5/3/15   edited 28/5/16
Value For Money?   Who Cares?

The Times and the BBC News both carry the story of the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up Sellafield, which has increased by £5bn to £53bn, according to the National Audit Office.*   The price determined by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, in June, 2014, had risen again to £79.1 billion.

According to the BBC, Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which commissioned the report, said the cost hike was "astonishing."   Quite why she is so surprised is in itself surprising.   As an astute woman, one might have thought she would have seen the process for what it is.   A large number of companies are enjoying healthy profits for doing a poor job, and why shouldn't they prolong it as long as they can get away with it?

As is typical with nuclear promises, the forecasts are obviously made by people with rose-tinted spectacles on.   Whether they are talking about how safe things are, how nobody ever got killed by nuclear power, how much waste will be produced, how many people will benefit from it, or how much it will cost to clean up, or how efficient they are at doing their job, everything carries the hallmarks of excellent Blair-style spin.

Less than a year ago, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the people who decide who gets the lucrative contracts, assured us that the cost would be a mere £48bn and would be completed on schedule.   Fat chance!

The Select committee's report has noted that the work is also behind schedule

As a further token of their incompetence, the NDA awarded Nuclear Management Partners a £9 billion contract to clean the site up but, it seems, they forgot to provide a get-out clause, so the cancellation of the contract will cost ratepayers just under half a million pounds.   Rewards for failure anyone?   Value for money?   Mrs. Hodge's committee recommended cancellation of the contract a year ago, but the NDA knew best.

Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming when the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, NMP, and Sellafield Ltd. appear before the Committee on 11 March.

Even the (usually supportive) union has deserted NMP management.   According to the BBC report, Chris Jukes, regional officer of the GMB union, said: "GMB has been absolutely clear all along that the NMP model did not work at Sellafield.  

"Poor value for money, poor top NMP management and a lack of grip on key issues in an essential area for the UK energy sector, as well as the UK economy, have led to unbelievable decisions on expenditure."

Yet it has taken six years to get to this understanding!

The National Audit Office reckons the total cost of cleaning up the UK's 17 nuclear sites is "around £70bn"   (It had risen to £79 billion by June, 2014.)   Surely this begs the question of the true price of nuclear energy.   The EdF deal which will surely be an albatross fo the U.K. for a very long period, is already going to increase the cost of electricity and that fails to take into account insurance and decommissioning costs, both of which will be provided by the taxpayer.

The Times points out that the “lifetime cost” of cleaning up Sellafield by the authority’s deadline of 2120 has more than doubled (actually, tripled!) in five years, from £25 billion in 2010. The NAO said that the authority had attributed the higher costs to “a better understanding of the scale and nature of the risks and challenges on the site”.   Is that a confession that they don't know what they were doing?   On the Sellafield News page there is nothing at all about the Audit Office's views, so, good impartial honesty, then.   No doubt many of the strangely dedicated-to-nuclear peers will come up with propaganda about why nuclear is so difficult, but so very necessary.

Masters of Integrity?

So, two more politicians have been accused of offering to influence democratic processes for private personal gain.   Both are experienced ex-ministers and, despite being accused by the media of having offered to "ask questions", or are reported to have insinuated that they are willing to use their contacts for the benefit of a private company and their own personal gain;  they say they have done nothing illegal.   That is as may be, but isn't this a corruption of the democratic process and thus, at the very least, immoral?   Are we expected to put up with these standards, or are we entitled to expect more?   Aren't MPs supposed to be making decisions which ensure the best outcome for everyone, not merely pursuing the ambitions of some private paymaster?   Even if an examination of the facts fail to prove a breach of the legislation or, on a much lower scale, some self-imposed political protocols - such as the Parliamentary Standards Committee (whose membership is comprised of:  5 Conservatives, 4 Labour, 1 Lib Dem, and 3 lay members) is it alright to say nothing is wrong?

Maybe there is a sliding scale of influence that can be bought?   The more a company can invest by obtaining an MP's interest (usually by inviting them to become a consultant) the more they can hope to manipulate important and far-reaching decision-making.   Presumably, too, the higher the rank of the poliltician the more they can charge for their consultancy services and the more the process of democracy will become distorted.   No wonder so many of the ex-politicians are awarded board memberships of the big companies when they leave office!   Rewards for past performance?

Over and over again the same faces appear, supporting some strange and irrational policies for no apparent reason.   Interestingly, just as did certain DECC officials, the lords and ladies of the land have a great interest in the future of nuclear:  both its expansion and its waste disposal.   How many of them have connections (current or anticipated in the future) in the industry or its civil or nuclear engineering works?   With peers of the realm failing to see the obvious drawbacks in becoming dependent on and beholden to foreign companies for finance and technological development, or to accept that even legal conduct can be immoral, what price the honours system that made them lords and ladies?   Perhaps it was always this way and it is just modern communications that permits Joe Public to see the facts.

On 25th February, 2015, a debate is to be held in the Moses Room in the Houses of Parliament.   Hosted by the staunchly pro-nuclear Baroness Verma, the idea is to get the nuclear dump listed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.   This will entitle it to be elevated to a development which requires no local input.   Local councils will be unable to control the development and the public will just be told what is going to be put in their locality.   The colour of the factory gates won't even be up for debate.   The Hansard record of the debate can be found here:

Even non-political people might recall David Cameron's talk of "localism".   Such an important concept that they had to make up a new word for the dictionary!   Others may recall being told that if any one of the triumvirate ruled against the dump being built in Cumbria then the whole matter would be shelved.   Naturally, that promise was made on the basis that a) the locals were so stupid as to agree, and b) that sufficient of the local representatives and press articles had paved the way for the people at a).   Even Cumbria County Council's refusal was not on the most obvious matters of pollution and inadequate infra-structure, but nonetheless they did refuse.   That was officially the end of the proposal for Cumbria, except that no other council was willing to contemplate placing the risks in their own backyard.   So the voice of democracy is only to be heard when it suits those in positions of power;  some of who's morals are demonstrably lacking.   Time for change as MP Zac Goldsmith and the Speaker John Bercow have both said.

So, one has to ask, what are the reasons behind this unflinching push for nuclear?   How many of the regulars are set for rewards, whether direct or indirect?   The daily rates for "consultations" with influential MPs seems to be around £5,000 to £10,000 per day, and even one comparatively small furniture company seems to see this as a worthwhile expenditure.   One has to wonder what might be on offer from the likes of the nuclear industry which sees many billions of public money spent each year.

Several years ago, Électricité de France managed to get DECC officials to agree an exorbitant figure for nuclear power generation, let alone providing just about everything the company might need to obviate risk to itself.   The figure was over twice the then current rate of other forms of generation, and was guaranteed for 50 years, index-linked, naturally.   In recent times the cost of energy production has fallen considerably.   Has this changed anything?   Nope, the good old British public will be required to pay through the nose for nuclear generated power regardless of its viability - commercial or environmental.

24/2/15, edited 28/5/16
Droning On

The advent of new technology brings both rewards and threats.   One of the latest fads is the use of drones - akin to miniature flying bedsteads, and usually having a rotor at each of its corners.   Hobby drones range in price from around £30 (including camera) to over £10,000, they are capable of spying on "sensitive" sites.   In France they have been spotted in ever-increasing numbers over government and nuclear establishments.   Attempts to catch the operators of these devices have failed.   Given their size and portability that is hardly surprising.   Even the heaviest of them only weighs about 5 kg (10lbs);  they can be controlled from up to around 2kms away;  may carry either still or video cameras, and use 14 channels to communicate with the controller.   The task of finding operators thus becomes almost impossible.

It is against the law to fly any machine within half a kilometre of any nuclear site at a height of less than 1 km.   So, catch me if you can, seems to be the idea.   What does it mean that people are willing to play chicken with the authorities?   As a bit of a lark, or prank, not much.   As a means for a terrorist to obtain up-to-the-minute detailed plans and photographs of a nuclear establishment, very sinister and extremely potentially very serious.   Taking photographs is not going to harm anyone, agreed, but what if the material gathered is given to those who do not have the nation's interests at heart?   How long before a drone is developed that can carry a more malicious payload?

Since we wrote the above, over a year ago, the hobby drone has really caught on.   Along with laser pens, the price of the equipment has reduced considerably, so that the most recent fully equipped one is now under £350. Laser pens can be bought or fashioned from the components of domestic audio equipment.   Even at considerable distances these lasers can blind.   There is an obvious scenario which involves security at nuclear sites.

7/11/13 further edited 12/11/13
Another Campaign Website

Whether you are pro- or anti-nuclear, but nonetheless wish to protest against the despoilation of the beautiful countryside and further proliferation of the ugly nuclear sites, you will find this website of considerable interest:

The current propaganda suggests that there will be tremendous economic and social benefits to Copeland and Allerdale districts of Cumbria if the dump were to get the go-ahead.   Yet even the ex-Sellafield PR manager and MP for Copeland, Jamieson Reed, a major supporter of the nuclear industry, was quoted in The Times, 4/11/13, pointing out that "health services around Sellafield are suffering major cuts,  local courts and police stations are closing and major civic amenities are closing down".   Not much obvious in the way of benefits there, despite the passage of half a century, as people have tolerated the dirtiest and most polluting industry around.   Will any promises of future largesse - sorry, compensation - be better honoured?   Unlikely, we think.   Once they have achieved their objective the rest will become just rhetoric.   Just as interesting will be how far the tame geologists will go before acknowledging that the terrain is in fact unsuitable.   How much money will that take?   Or will they press on regardless, with large construction companies insisting that they can "engineer a solution" with their main goal being to line their own pockets with the prolonged profits that the government, once committed to this course of action, will be obliged to maintain despite the inevitable burgeoning costs and delays - or risk losing face.   Still, many of those decision-makers will have had the foresight to invest in the construction industry.

In the best traditions, being against the nuclear dump has provoked the plan's protagonists into ire, not least the local ex-Sellafield PR man, now (happily for Sellafield) the local MP, who has published statements about the trust's ambitions and questioned their motives.   Pretty standard stuff, really, but is this really what an MP should be doing - or is he supposed to be representing the views of all constituents rather than pushing for one small group?   Still, he didn't even have a Plan B for when things went awry with the multiple nuclear reactors proposed a short while ago.   Should that not have been  part of his brief if he truly had the interests of the region at heart?

7/11/13   further edited  12/11/13
Lies, Damned Lies and Politicians

Five years ago the politicians announced several criteria that would have to be met before any consideration could be given to nuclear expansion:
  • no subsidies;
  • a method and location for the disposal of nuclear waste - legacy and new to be in place before further expansion could be undertaken;
  • designs would have to be generically approved and safe in operation;
  • energy security needs would have to be met; 
  • approval of local residents obtained before any project was permitted to start.
  • all three of the groups involved in the "Partnership" - Cumbria CC, Allerdale and Copeland - must all agree.   A negative result from any one would mean the end of the project.
If you believed the Liberal Democrats, as many did back then, there would be no nuclear development except over the dead body of one prominent member, who reiterated that stipulation at a meeting we attended in Westminster.   That was a stated policy which must have won them many thousands of extra votes, but a promise that went the way of so many others when that particular party ostensibly became eligible for a bit of a say in national affairs.

The latest announcement of an unpopular, subsidised development at Hinkley Point by Électricité de France using 50 year-old designs and financed by China, illustrates how well the criteria have been met.

There is still no plan or location approved for the disposal of nuclear waste.   Residents of the unique location in Cumbria having voiced their disapproval many times.   This time round the government consultation exercise is prefaced with the usual rhetoric about local opinions.   What in fact they have done, is to remove the county council from the equation - their objections to the proposals resulting in a no vote last time - meaning that all efforts to cajole residents can now be concentrated on just two areas:  Allerdale and Copeland.   One can imagine that if this exercise should fail the only people with any input will be the residents of Copeland, where most of the population are engaged in the industry and its suppliers.   If that fails, and opposition does seem to be mounting quite quickly according to letters in the local press, then the government will have to whittle down the eligible to those based around, say, Sellafield canteen.   Or perhaps consult just the local MP and his cohorts?   That way success is inevitable.

The scope of the consultation can be found here: .  Please feel free to appreciate the wonderful new jargon, like "The Learning Phase", "The Focusing Phase", along with old favourites like representative authority.   Whatever happened to good old English language?   Somewhat amusingly, one of the final criteria calls for a positive demonstration of local support.   Given that the area being focused on is Sellafield, then it would be very surprising if NMP and all the other greedy companies could resist the temptation to fund huge demonstrations with its staff.   What chance the small guy against such odds?   Like lobbying MPs, the people with the money have the most access and influence.   A good critique can be found here:

The DECC document goes on, in the best manner of a government department with a set objective - but very reminiscent of a wide-boy car salesman, "Beyond this point, any proposed development would, of course, remain subject to statutory planning and regulatory regimes, and their accompanying public and stakeholder engagement and consultation requirements."   Yeah, right, that's why the government have removed most of the rights to object to such major proposals.   What kind of say will residents have when politicians have given the go-ahead?   Precious little we think.   It may be worthwhile at this point to indicate that the proposed Nuisance Bill currently making its way through parliament will put an end to any form of protest which causes a nuisance.   Hmm.   Not, of course, that politicians would ever want to stifle criticism or protests . . .

Naturally, none of the cost burden for waste disposal will fall on those who wish to profit from nuclear development.   It will all be paid for by the U.K. taxpayer, ultimately for the benefit of private companies - most of whom have little interest in what would be best for the U.K.

One of the other main planks of the "Localism" touted by Cameron and his ilk is that there will be adequate rewards for any community agreeing to host the nuclear dump.   An example of just how rewarding Cumbria's involvement with nuclear has been is quoted in The Times of 4th November, in a statement from the pro-nuclear at any cost MP, Jamieson Reed:  ". . .health services around Sellafield are suffering major cuts,  local courts and police stations are closing and major civic amenities are closing down."   The alternative viewpoint might be that such deprivations are vital and are being deliberately introduced in order to indicate to the local residents just how vital the nuclear industry is - whether they like it or not.  
At the very first meeting we attended, in Whitehaven, five years ago, we objected to the many posters around the room as they indicated that many of the projected improvement to social and health amenities and services were dependent on residents approving the nuclear developments which would have a devastating effect on the beautiful countryside of Copeland.   We were concerned, too, that the majority of those pushing so hard for the development had links to Sellafield, either in the way of past employment, or because they were in some way beholden to the industry.
It would be very interesting to learn how many MPs, their families and peers of the realm - especially those involved in the decision-making - stand to gain from nuclear development.   Some of them seem to have very close links indeed.

The Citigroup report, "New Nuclear - The Economics Say No", dated 9/11/09, was clear in the fact that nuclear was too expensive compared to alternative generation methods.   It is interesting, therefore to study the way in which the six major companies have manoeuvred to bring their prices in line with the promised subsidy which will be enjoyed by Électricité de France when/if the Hinkley Point reactor is commissioned.   Much grumbling by the politicians indicates either stupidity or, more likely, cunning.   It must have been apparent to all that the prices being demanded by Electricite de France would become the base line for all of them.   In the same way that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit becomes the minimum as well as the maximum speed in a built-up area.

Much posturing by Mr. E. Miliband about Labour fixing prices until 2017.   He seems to deliberately overlook the fact that the main price rises that will ensue once Hinkley is in operation will certainly not have come into play by 2017.

People are still pushing the global warming mantra and reiterating stories about the lights going out.   Whatever one believes about the former, the U.K.'s contribution, when compared to the likes of China and America, is minimal and any reduction even more so.   There should certainly be no need to stampede into an even more dangerous energy policy.   With regard to both matters, if a sensible and financially viable energy policy is developed and acted on then a reduction in CO2 and a secure continuing energy production programme will result.   Sadly, that idea is not likely to line MP's pockets.

It is apparent that politicians have once again waved fingers at the public in their efforts to secure benefits for themselves.   So many of the criteria have now been disposed of, it is now only a matter of time before the matter of a nuclear dump is resolved by ignoring the "localism" which has rejected it.   It is, after all, just a matter of whittling down the number of those to be consulted to just those who work for Sellafield and those who expect to gain as a result of a positive vote.   After all it would be a shame to waste the ground-work put in by those MPs who manipulated the parliamentary system (a gross abuse of parliamentary process - Michael Martin, Speaker) to ensure that insurance for nuclear incidents remains with the taxpayer, thereby making nuclear slightly more viable.

So, no waste disposal capability, no energy security, most equipment manufactured abroad, no secure source of raw materials, no local approval, 50 year-old designs that have never been completed on time or on budget,  and heavy index-linked subsidies to foreign companies.   Sounds good to someone.
Food for Thought

Sellafield exists solely to service the needs of Sellafield and the nuclear industry - mainly cleaning up pollution caused by Sellafield.    Although the contrary illusion is maintained, Sellafield does not make a profit and thus has no spending power other than that provided by the tax-payer.   It is now just a £1½ billion a year drain on the public purse.   As it does not earn any money, the largesse spread (albeit very thinly) around the communities in Cumbria stems purely from central government.   Stories that Sellafield are to fund such and such a project are thus totally illusory - they are in fact just spending tax-payer's money whilst skimming off substantial payments for the companies and individuals involved.   Any other project could be funded in this way without the corruption and pollution of the nuclear industry and the local community would be a lot better off.

Generation of electricity for the National Grid ceased more than ten years ago.   Since then the site has been a considerable consumer of electricity and gas, the latter via the 168 MWatt Fellside gas-powered power station.

Although considerable quantities of radioactive materials have been discharged by Sellafield, as part of a deliberate policy or by carelessness or accident, the quantities being recovered from the beaches is negligible in comparison.

A recent BBC programme gave further food for thought   One of the most illustrative sentences being "Whatever you do, do not put anything on the ground."

Read the article here:

The much vaunted "clean up" and the alternative, but not quite so graphic "decommissioning", of Sellafield does not mean the safe and complete disposal of nuclear materials.   It merely means the re-packaging (at best) of the contaminated material to a different location within the site.   There is currently no way of cleaning up radioactive material in the sense that it is rendered completely free of radiation and thus safe.   Some of the materials contaminated to a somewhat lesser degree are dumped at the Drigg site, where, apparently due to an oversight, illegally dumped higher-level contaminated materials were found by Greenpeace.   Other material is sent to landfill sites with no independent check on what it is that is being dumped.   Historically, of course, Sellafield management have a reputation for being open and honest.   (Ahem.)   Most recently, equipment designed to check the levels of materials due to be dumped was found not to have been calibrated and was, naturally, indicating that everything that passed through it was safe to dispose of in a normal landfill site.   How much radioactive material ended up being dumped in this manner is open to conjecture.   Other materials are handled by Studsvik in Workington.   The U.K. President of that company left rapidly around the time that a discrepancy of £1 million was found in the accounts.   The process that is carried out by Studsvik is basically melting down metals, adding waste radioactive materials and then selling it off to make belt-buckles, etc., in the hope that waste "diluted" in this way will become harmless.   Let's hope they are right.

The Price of Power

In a highly complex document issued by the government - interestingly just before their long summer holiday break, the subsidies available to electricity generating companies amounts to six times the current price of electricity.

"I deeply regret believing in the security myth of nuclear power."

Naoto Kan, 8/9/11

"Just the thought of Tepco's name is disgusting."

Tepco's Chairman, Kazuhiko Shimokobe, after figures reveal that 70.5% of Japanese want to see an end to nuclear power.

“It’s just hard to justify nuclear.   It's really a gas and wind world today, at some point economics must rule.”

U.S. company, General Electric's Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Immelt. (GE is one of the world’s major power-generation engineering companies.   Together with Japan’s Hitachi, the company designs and builds
nuclear reactors and is currently seeking generic design approval for their reactor.)
We Told You So

From the beginning we have said that we believed the whole nuclear consultation process was a sham.   We have previously raised the question as to how the Copeland M.P. could possibly have known so far in advance that only Sellafield/Moorside would be developed, with Braystones and Kisrksanton falling by the wayside, if the process of consulting people were genuine.   That those in Whitehall have become to cosy and close to the industry representatives is now revealed, as today the Guardian and the Times both have articles relating to the collusion between H.M. government and the nuclear industry.

From the content of e-mails obtained, there is an obvious attempt by civil servants to minimise the impact of Fukushima on the proposed (but obviously, as we have always said, already-determined) nuclear expansion in the U.K.   The material, which can be read here:,

demonstrates quite clearly that, without even waiting for the full scale of the Japanese disaster to be revealed, the official view is that there is a need for the information to be kept pro-nuclear and that the plans for the U.K. have to be kept within the established timetable.   Even the explosions at Fukushima, which ultimately released radioactive material from the melted-down cores into the atmosphere, were to be promoted as safety devices!
  • Is it the rôle of a civil servant to distort the democratic process?  
  • Is it the rôle of a civil servant to pass information to the private companies?  
  • Is it the rôle of a civil servant to promote the hiding of relevant information from the public who have a right to know?  
  • Is it the rôle of a civil servant to promote nuclear power regardless of demonstrable dangers?  
  • On whose behalf was the civil servant sending the e-mails?  
  • Why was the civil servant stating what the industry's response will be in order to promulgate misleading information on a co-ordinated front?  
  • What is the government and civil servants' reward for this publicity service?  
  • What benefits will be forthcoming to those involved?  
  • Is this just another example of what we see as the corrupting influence of the nuclear industry?
  • Why is it necessary for civil servants to be anonymous?   Surely, like us, they should have their heads on the chopping block.
Repeatedly we are assured that we are nowhere near fault lines and need have no worries about tsunamis.   Yet the 2000 incidents which have been admitted by the industry over the last seven years, but which fortunately did not escalate to full-blown catastrophe clearly demonstrate that human failings are just as important.   Amusingly presented as an abnormal event, the two reactors at Torness in Scotland, owned by Électricité de France, had to be shut-down after jellyfish blocked the cooling water intakes.   This happened on 29/6/11.   [With so many reactors planned to pour their hot water into the country's coastal waters, the ecological factors may yet become as vital as the geological ones.   Japan, amongst other countries has already experienced the phenomenom.]   [Another problem - that of re-circulating radioactive material discharged into the Irish Sea by Sellafield - we included in our objections to the Cumbrian plans.]

We have intimated our opinion elsewhere that the initial office-based (!) review of safety by Dr. Weightman had only one possible conclusion.   This premise is revealed in one of the e-mails (quote below) between Whitehall and one of the developers.  

Hopefully, those with the resources will attempt to obtain a judicial review of the whole process - with civil servants and ministers being interrogated and prosecuted where wrong-doing is established.   Will it happen?

With quotes (sadly, such is the shyness of those involved, a great deal of black marker pen obscures both the originator's and recipient's identities) such as:

"We need to quash any stories trying to compare this to Chernobyl - by using the facts to discredit.

"We do not want to be on the back foot with this.   People at new build sites are likely to be following closely.

"We should all work together - including with the NIA to be robust.   Everything in life is with risk - but the mitigation with nuclear is so high that the risk is minimal - as demonstrated in Japan - despite the extraordinary context the plant has gone through."

We query why these suggestions for a common response to legitimate public concerns originated from a government department, whose responsibility remains to protect the public - not blindly promote nuclear.

Mark Higson, Office for Nuclear Development:  "But he [Huhne] might, if pressed, wish to say he is asking Mike Weightman to provide a full assessment of the implications and lessons to be learnt.   If he does it would be good if EdF could welcome.   Not sure if EdF unilaterally asking for a review is wise.   Might set off a bidding war."

Unknown (obliterated with marker) at the Office for Nuclear Development to unknown industry recipient:

"That's why we commissioned the report from Dr. Mike Weightman.   I don't anticipate that is going to lead to enormous changes but we have to wait and see the result of it, based on the facts."

[We read that as a nod to a blind donkey.]

The original article can be found at:
or as an Acrobat file:                       Local Acrobat copy of the article from above site

We would recommend anyone interested to spend some time going through the e-mails, as they give a good perception of the closeness between those paid to represent out interests, yet who have chosen to become P.R. managers for the industry.   Small wonder they prefer to remain anonymous.

Dramatic Change of Mind - If Not Heart

An article on the Energy Minister, Mr. C. Huhne, from the Times, 30/6/11:
  • In 2007, he described nuclear as “tried, tested and failed” and urged ministers to stop the “sideshow of new nuclear power stations now”.
  • Earlier he had said that no private sector investor in the world had built a nuclear power station without “lashings of government subsidy” since the tragedies at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. “Our message is clear, no to nuclear, as it is not a short cut, but a dead end.”
  •  Mr Huhne’s decision to pick out France, in his most passionate argument in favour of nuclear power yet, has infuriated Liberal Democrat colleagues. Martin Horwood, the Lib Dem MP for Cheltenham who has argued against an expansion in nuclear power since the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan, called it “very disappointing”. Lib Dems promised before the general election to oppose a new generation of nuclear power stations.
  •  In the run-up to the Government’s White Paper on electricity market reform, Mr Huhne said: “Some countries already have a head start. Electricity prices in France are set to rise by around 3 per cent this year; compare and contrast with Britain, where prices are rising by three times as much.
  • “It is no surprise France is the European country with the least reliance on fossil fuels, and enjoys some of the lowest prices — 9.4 per cent below ours.”
  • Although Mr Huhne also praised renewables, his decision to highlight France, which has 58 nuclear reactors compared with 19 in the UK, will be interpreted as a call for the energy source to receive a particular boost.

We have already included previous statements attributed to Mr. Huhne, who is currently being investigated for two criminal offences.   The favourite one being, "Over my dead body", in relation to nuclear expansion.

Any suggestions as to what might have persuaded Mr. Huhne to change his mind?  
Of course, another minister, a couple of years ago, having awarded a £20 billion contract for submarines using nuclear power, very soon took up employment with an American company, Hyperion, who just happen to manufacture small reactors suitable for use in nuclear-powered submarines.   The ban on that M.P. lobbying on behalf of his new employer has only just expired.   Consequently, a campaign has recently appeared, supporting nuclear but suggesting that small nuclear power plants - like those used in, er, submarines, could be installed near to where they are needed.

Such a plan would reduce the infra-structure requirements and transmission losses as well as obviating the need for planning controls from the IPC.   By careful design they could keep under the level at which referral to the planners have to be involved.   Happily that reduces the ability of locals to object, but profit is the main thing for any company with shareholders.


The comparison with other countries is somewhat spurious, as the market in the U.K. has been deliberately distorted by the government in order to make nuclear power economically viable.   We are still trying to find out about the Speaker Martin investigation into how the industry's liabilities were capped at a ludicrously low level - described at the time as a gross abuse of parliamentary process.   Apart from other distortions, there is the unbelievable idea that it is possible today to estimate how much it will cost to decommission plant and deal with nuclear waste 160 years in the future.   Even Huhne's apparent preoccupation with France seems to overlook that 3% of the population there live in fuel poverty, even though there is a very good social system to ensure minimum living standards, and that, despite having 58 reactors, France is still a net importer of electricity.   Which companies are upping the cost of electricity in the UK?   Will the new chairman of the Green Investment Bank look favourably on any loan application from Électricité de France?   Will any loan be at proper market rates, or is this the way in which a subsidy can be given without being a subsidy?   Aren't politicians wonderful?

Energy forecast to 2020 Forecast comment

Braystones Floods - River Ehen

View the effects of the recent storms on the River Ehen - less than 1 mile away from the proposed

new nuclear developments.  

One of three links posted by local residents.

During the course of development of this webpage we have come across so much material of a truly scary nature.  It goes back to the early days of the deregulation of the power industry,
in this country and overseas, and some of the antics are worryingly conducive to the conspiracy theorist.  One particular comment triggered a train of thought - it may help explain some
of the material.    Following the discovery of new material, we have added to the original.

Click here to read a bit of fiction based on that comment.

Does anyone else find this quotation scary?   It seems a bit like a recommendation for brainwashing to us:
'I remember how we discussed ways of getting the greenhouse effect, caused by burning fossil fuels, onto the political and environmental agenda. At several of the blue sky meetings we also talked about education and my belief that we must capture the minds, if not the hearts, of young children, who were clearly influenced by the stream of anti-nuclear programmes appearing on television and, it has to be said, by the attitude of many of their teachers.'

(Harold Bolter, "Inside Sellafield", Quarter Books, 1996.   ISBN 0 7043 8017 X)
"One particular issue that has arisen this year is in relation to the discharges of a radionuclide known as antimony 125;  it is discharged almost entirely by the Fuel Handling Plant at Sellafield. . . .  there has been a slight increase in discharges of this particular nuclide to atmosphere." (WCSSG minutes for the 2/4/09, Para 93, Page 21)
'A decision by SL to resume the reprocessing of spent fuel is almost certain to led to a breach of the [antimony] 125Sb limit to air, however we are satisfied that this would not cause any harm to members of the public or the environment.'
(Briefing note for West Cumbria Sites Stakeholder Group by the Environment Agency.)

A slight variation on the standard, "No animals were hurt, etc." rhetoric.

Nuclear Directorate's Struggles

We are all used to hearing about the need for "zero tolerance" and how no incident is acceptable.   How come then that, after more than five decades of operation, Sellafield still had more than 1767 "incidents" in seven years?   [Source:  "Briefing on Nuclear Programme", Mike Weightman, Chief Inspector at HSE Nuclear Directorate.   Obtained via Freedom of Information Act.]   This august body has the aims of protecting people and society from the hazards of the nuclear industry.   (HSE Nuclear Directorate's purpose statement.)   The directorate is so starved of inspectors (many of whom will also be retiring in a couple of years time) that they have taken, or are about to take on, people from abroad (mainly China) and are seriously considering seconding people from the very corporations they are supposed to be inspecting!   A variation on the self-regulatory system that has failed so abysmally in other, less vital, industries.

The NII needs to have recruited new inspectors and professionals by the end of the first quarter of 2009 so the implementation of the short-term
recommendations must receive the focused efforts and attention of government and the HSE in particular.   Failure to do so will seriously jeopardise
the delivery of a key element of this government's energy policy.

(Recommendation from the Stone Review.)

Seven years later have they achieved this?

This site is under continual development.   We intend, by using this site, to show the pro-nuclear propaganda to be the pack of lies and half-truths  that it is.   It is acknowledged that there has to be a change in the way in which we use energy, and that the continued use of resources and production of CO2 cannot continue.  We do not accept that the Cumbrian coast is a suitable place for what amounts to an overgrown industrial estate stretching from beyond Barrow-in-Furness to Maryport.   We do not accept that it is prudent to produce the most toxic substances known to mankind and store them in vats until technology permits their safe disposal some time in the future.  

We do not accept that it is responsible behaviour on anyone's part to permit any industry to discharge such noxious substances into the atmosphere or the sea, or to leach into the ground, or that it is the government's rôle to permit such discharges.

This site has been compiled over more than seven years, and it would be remiss of us not to express our gratitude to all who have helped with advice and
information - sometimes several times a day.   At the outset our concerns lay with preventing RWE from building at Braystones.   This we
helped to achieve, but then NuGen arrived with even worse plans.   Let's hope we can help get rid of them, too.

To those people, who have supplied material, inspiration, support and information, many thanks.

Click here to Contact us
  If you would like to know more, or if you spot any inaccuracies, please let us know.
We will make any corrections at the earliest opportunity, with any due apologies.