|
Britain's
Toxic
Coast
|
||
|
Page hits (to 2/02/10): 8654 888 hits in one week! |
 |
Last up-dated: 4/02/10 |
|
||||||
|
(this
page)
|
Opinion | The Voice of Experience | Editorial |
|---|
|
View
the effects of the recent storms on the River Ehen - 1 mile away from
the proposed
new nuclear developments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9pIo_TEcWY, 1 of 3 clips posted by a resident. |
|
Local MP, Mr. Reed, has been interviewed live on Radio Cumbria and categorically stated that only one development will go ahead - that at Sellafield. When questioned on how he knew this, he became flustered and said that he had arrived at an "informed opinion", before realising that that had not improved things. What information is he not sharing with those whose coast he is promoting the destruction of? How can he possibly know what the outcome of an incomplete public consultation will be - if the outcome has not already been determined? What is the purpose of RWE's purchase of land at Braystones otherwise? Listen to what the MP has to say and wonder how he knows these things: First Interview and Follow-up item Also noteworthy is the fact that he states three reactors will be built on the land near Sellafield. Our experience is that most people have the impression only one reactor is being considered. Consequently this will be a massive expansion of the failing Sellafield site. Public
consultation is to continue about where they are going to bury the
waste in future: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8361247.stm
Can't think why they want to waste everybody's time, why don't they just ask Mr. Reed? No doubt the decision has been made and everyone will be in favour - whether they are or not! 
 The projected cost has nothing to do with nuclear new-build or proposals which will require dramatic changes to the area's infra-structure. Please note also, that the changes which will ensue should any of the new reactors go ahead will not involve local opinion. The new Planning Act seems likely to be so poorly draughted (as is the norm these days) that permission for a major project to go ahead will almost certainly grant automatic permission for the associated works. Thus ensuring that any local planning constraints will be over-ridden. To quote from an informed source in Radiation Free Lakeland: "The Infrastructure and Planning Committee is the result of ‘streamlining’ the planning process, which means that issues like the unsolved nuclear waste problem, safety, health and environment will be excluded from the public’s input into decision making. In other words, community groups,individuals and Non Governmental Organisations could present conclusive evidence that Heysham is on a geological fault line or that there is a link between radiation and diseases but this would not be considered as relevant by the IPC. The Infrastructure and Planning Committee was successfully lobbied for by the nuclear industry, which now wants to exclude even the recommendations from government experts." Mr. Miliband has announced (9/11/09) that ten of the eleven proposed sites for nuclear development, including Braystones, Sellafield, and Kirksanton, will be considered satisfactory to go to the next stage of the process. That the person who will ultimately decide the unfortunate sites has proved to be such a staunch supporter of the nuclear industry is a very worrying precedent. Mr. Miliband has made it patently obvious that he approves of nuclear development, despite the consultation process not yet having been completed. We can only hope that those with the necessary resources, abilities and knowledge will fight the proposals to the best of their abilities. Hopefully, even a legal challenge to his rôle as judge and jury. No matter what the cost of construction, commissioning and waste disposal, the companies behind the projects will expect to make a profit. These costs will, therefore, be recouped from the UK public, plus any profit margin. It is impossible to see that electricity produced this way can ever be viable. That the cost of each reactor is at least (even at the loss-leader levels to be expected from these people when they submit an initial "tempter" bid - which will bear no relation to the actual envisaged costs) £7 billion, is sufficient cause for the public to be really, really, worried. Practically all this money will go abroad - from the cost of the reactors to the profits. We are talking tens or hundreds of billions of pounds. The amount which will be returned to the UK is a pittance in comparison to what will be taken out - yet we will be carrying the risks and suffering the despoilation of our countryside. We note that the local plan for West Cumbria requires any major development to include funding for infra-structure improvements required as a result of a project to be borne by the developer. We hope that the government will refuse to fund any of the building that is set to destroy the West Cumbria environment so comprehensively. The government have been conned into believing the industry's claims that they will fund everything and there will be no cost to the UK. Now its the time to call their bluff - make them pay for it all, from land purchase to infra-structure to the necessary improvements to the national grid and waste disposal. Sadly, as we note elsewhere, the manipulators have already made the UK responsible for insuring the risks - not an auspicious start. Comments in parliament with regard to the "spike" of employment suffered by West Cumbria during the building of nuclear installations reveal that the pattern of ten years boom, followed by 13,000 people simultaneously being made redundant over a very short period, is likely to be repeated. A bonus being the killing of any other sustainable industry, thus ensuring West Cumbria becomes even more reliant on just one major employer. A great deal of rubbish is being touted on behalf of interested parties - not least those who stand to gain large amounts of money should nuclear new-build go ahead. Nuclear is not the answer for the following reasons: 1. Finance Despite assurances, nuclear is not financially viable. The premise on which this was founded ignored the cost of building the power stations - which, because they are private projects were originally to be paid for by the companies without taxpayer input (something which is already changing); the insurance - which, following a devious plot by some MPs is now to be underwritten - without the benefit of commercially-equivalent premiums - by the taxpayer; the storage and handling of waste - which themselves will never be commercially viable; the damage to health and environment caused by current establishments and which will be exacerbated by any new developments; the cost of new infra-structure in the remote areas likely to be selected for any new-build. Without government subsidy people will end up in fuel poverty. In France, 25% of people can no longer afford to pay their energy bills - despite the heavy government subsidy to the nuclear industry. France, often held as an example of good nuclear practice, was a net importer of fuel in 2007/8. Anyone who doubts the financial basis for our arguments should have a look at what the Citigroup decided in response to Miliband's statements in the House on the 9th November, 2009. It is an Acrobat file - click here to download. 2. Climate Change Nuclear energy production is neither clean, green or CO2 neutral. Every stage of the process, from extraction to production to waste product, produces more CO2 than any other method of energy production. In addition, it has a multitude of by-products, such as HFCs, antimony, and a range of heavy metals. Because of the need for uninterruptible power to cool the stored waste, alternative sources have to provide the required energy. This is in the form of conventionally powered generating stations - each of which produces more CO2. (Other factors, such as the energy consumed in back-up and safety processes ancillary to the generation are noted throughout this site.) [Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.] 3. Waste Currently there is no known method of safely disposing of the waste from nuclear energy production. The waste includes the radioactive materials, together with the many chemicals that they are mixed with to facilitate various processes - including the reprocessing. At present the major part of this waste is in the form of millions of gallons of highly radioactive nitric acid. The initial premise was that a second generation of nuclear power stations would produce waste that could then be used again. This failed to materialise and the few existing power stations using that process are being phased out. Every country producing power by nuclear means has a serious problem with the waste produced. The sole solution that does not involve horrendous costs is to find a hole in the ground and bury it, thus imposing a future burden for the next generations. It is surely our problem and not theirs? Unlike most waste, there is no quick decay - these materials will be highly toxic for thousands of years. Burial implies that they will not be recoverable, meaning a reliance on the stability of tectonic plates that does not exist in nature. Questions around waste include whether it should be buried in a way so that it can be recovered, or just buried for eternity. What happens if the latter material is discovered to be leaking and causing damage? Monitoring only tells of events that have occurred - it does not provide a failsafe. Sadly, permanent interment is not viable as there is no known method which is infallible. There is a requirement for suitable geological formation, but that does not exist in the areas volunteering to be considered - Copeland, and Allerdale, the two council areas around Sellafield. It seems that the surveys may be amended to produce satisfactory results for the politicians in order that they can persuade people the waste is not a problem anymore. The next generation of power stations will produce waste seven times more toxic than the current ones. This will be stored on the site of the generators, making for a wider target for terrorists. Sellafield's on-site storage is already in serious difficulty due to corrosion. It was not designed to be impervious to terrorist attack, and even a light aircraft crashing into the appropriate storage area could cause widespread damage. 4. Health Despite a variety of deflecting enquiries, the most recent scientific research has found that there is an increased risk of leukemia in proximity to nuclear power stations. Body samples from around the UK were removed, without seeking consent, for analysis to assess the up-take of materials from the nuclear industry. The Redfern Enquiry, set up by Alistair Darling in 2007 to establish the facts, has been adjourned for some time now and their website has not been up-dated since 2007. Two e-mails we have sent to their web address, enquiring as to progress, have not been acknowledged or replied to. (See Editorial Page for more.) There are moves afoot to ensure that not just the Sellafield workers gain compensation when they suffer from radiation-induced illnesses. Questions remain as to why the unions involved in worker compensation claims are happy to go along with the secrecy that seems to surround individual cases. 5. Environment The land around Sellafield is already polluted. The body responsible for cleaning up the area is also responsible for producing the pollution. Products from Sellafield can be found throughout the Irish Sea, around the Scottish coast, across to Scandinavia and the Bering Sea, and across to Nova Scotia. These products, some of which were deliberately discharged (source: Click here to read the report on Dunster statement. A synopsis of the article can be found in the notes attached to this website.) to find out what effects they have on people and the environment - part of a large experiment conducted without consent of the participants - are so long-lived that to all intents and purposes they are going to last for ever. 6. Risks and Threats Despite the policitians' statements to the contrary, the supply of raw materials for the nuclear industry is not secure. Some of the main suppliers are politicallly unstable, others require the transport of the material half way around the world. In 5. above, we note the potential for terrorist attack that is extant, and which will be exacerbated by having more storage depots/more frequent transportation of raw and waste materials. We have also noted that the new processes will produce waste seven times more toxic even than the current levels. Burying materials is not a viable option as the methods are, as yet, imperfect and untried. In some parts of the world it is being tried, but these are in areas with very low rainfall. With almost a metre of rainfall per year, Cumbria is not a sensible option - even if the government manage to ignore the unsatisfactory rock formation. The current flooding in Cumbria highlights the dangers of both irretrievable nuclear waste, the potential for accelerated decay of the casing, the problems related to transport and other parts of the infra-structure in the region when catastrophes occur. 7. Accountability. There will be no long-term accountability or enforceable correction measures. The companies involved in these proposals are almost entirely of foreign origin. It seem that the expenses will rest on the UK taxpayer whilst any profits will go abroad. In the event of a nuclear incident, the UK taxpayer will be required to foot the bill. There is currently a consultation exercise being conducted by the government. The decision will be made by the minister from the Department for Envrionment and Climate Change, Mr. Miliband. He is already on record as saying that nuclear is the only option. The land surrounding Sellafield was sold in November, 2009, for £70 million. (To be more precise, just over £5 million was agreed for the option to buy the land, the rest to be paid later.) There was an assumption on the part of all concerned that the buyer would be building at least three reactors on the site. No planning consent has yet been given and the consultation process has not been concluded. There has been no local consultation over the Energy Coast proposition, which has been promoted by ex-Sellafield staff and quangos set up using pro-nuclear organisations funds - such as money from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The government are proposing changes to the planning legislation to enable faster approval of major projects such as this. Inevitably this will mean that there will be less opportunity for the public to make their voices heard. As one sage said, "Never before has the public been so consulted by government, and never before have the public been less listened to." With the proposed changes to the planning legislation there will be even less likelihood of public opinion being aired. Such is what passes for democracy under these posturing, spinning (a euphemism for lying) politicians. It will be interesting to see how many of these people become employees of the generating companies when the next election leaves them jobless. Surely, many of them will follow the examples of one of the original Champagne Socialists - "Nuclear Jack" and, more recently, Mr. Hutton, below? Braystones
For over 60 years Braystones has lived quietly and peacefully in the shadow of neighbouring Sellafield. Sadly, like so many other Cumbrian, Manx, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Scandinavian coastal communities, it has discovered that the pollution from the nuclear plant has been washed up on its shores. Over 350 radioactive particles have been found on the beach (ref. Beach Monitoring Summary Report, from the official Sellafield website: http://www.sellafieldsites.com) in the last few years, and the area is still scanned on a regular basis by a team from Sellafield using a tracked Hillcat vehicle (see picture below). Monitors with geiger counters also check the tidelines for any particles. The beaches are used by holiday-makers, whilst commercial and competitive fishing takes place all along the coast. Despite the fact that, more than 25 years ago, the beaches here were declared "safe" after a radioactive slick caused widespread pollution to the shores, these radioactive particles are still being found. (We recommend readers unfamiliar with the situation to have a look at our Bellona Report Highlights page or, even better, read the actual report from this link: http://www.bellona.org/filearchive/fil_sellaengweb.pdf To see some notes from Copeland Council's Planning department and puzzle over how any of the proposals can be made to fit, click here. We note elsewhere that the BBC seem to be especially biased when it comes to nuclear new-build. Despite our letters to a variety of programmes and presenters (Coast, Panorama, Look Northwest, Julia Bradbury, etc.) the bias is still painfully obvious. "Coast" these days always seems to deviate when they get to Barrow or Morecambe, making their way to the Isle of Man or to Ireland, only returning when safely past Sellafield. However, we have come across a Series 1 Coast programme from 2005, which was obviously made well before the contraversial new developments were announced. Click here to view the clip from "Coast". (.flv - Flash - file, 21 MBytes - about 8 minutes.) It is a worthwhile exercise, if only for the animation depicting the plume of technetium 99. (With its long half-life, 212,000 years, Tc-99 remains in the environment, to all intents and purposes, for ever. Air, sea water, soils, plants, and animals contain very low concentrations of Tc-99. Organic matter in soils and sediments slows the transport of Tc-99. In the presence of oxygen, plants readily take up technetium compounds from the soils. Some plants such as brown algae living in seawater are able to concentrate Tc-99. Technetium-99 can also transfer from seawater to animals. Ingestion is the primary entry route for Tc-99 into the body. This may occur by eating food or drinking water contaminated with Tc-99.) Source: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/radionuclides/technetium.html Seafood cocktail anyone? Actually, the commercial gathering of cockles and other seafood existed until a short while ago, particularly around Nethertown Head. Fishing from small boats is still very popular around the outfall pipe, including trippers from Whitehaven. We have to wonder whether this is a sensible practise. |
| Here is another clip: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8107470.stm This one, despite depicting Gosforth residents opposed to the siting of a nuclear dump (sorry, repository) in the village, is headed, "Councils compete for Nuclear Dump". Even that is factually incorrect. All that has happened is that two councils have consented to permit investigations to take place into whether the locations are suitable. Neither has yet expressed any actual interest. Mind you, there is a possibility that, once the investigations have been concluded, the government will decide that too much has been invested to go anywhere else, thus removing the voluntary nature of the deal. It is unclear whether the local councillors have considered this aspect of things. Throughout all this the community has suffered in silence, mindful of the employment and financial rewards offered by the plant. Along with radioactive materials - land-borne, marine-borne, and air-borne - there is the constant hum and the nocturnal light pollution. Children have played on the beach through all these decades. Fish and shellfish have still been caught and eaten. The Plans for Braystones 
 These plans on the left were put forward at the April meetings, and show the proposed effects on Braystones beach in the area shown in the heading photograph. The beach bungalows would, obviously, be very much in the way. Even if they are not removed, there would be a devastating effect on the quality of the beach and its environs. Interestingly, plans were recently approved by Copeland council for a similar "marine off-loading facility", but at Sellafield - about 4 kms south of the area depicted above. The ostensible reason for the requirement being to facilitate the installation of a replacement evaporator to replace one which has become defective. Strangely, there was apparently no need for one when the original evaporators were installed. Cynics might believe that this is another manipulation by the NDA to increase the value of the land they are trying to auction at Sellafield. They might also wonder at the ameniability of the local councillors and council officers. Taken in isolation these plans are drastic enough, by see how Braystones will become sandwiched by the additions to the proposed Iberdrola site at Sellafield. These diagrams take no account of the likelihood of services springing up in "industrial parks". How long before the two sites join together and the whole thing becomes one big industrial area like those in the worst excesses of the Victorian era? Then, of course, there are the proposals for Kirksanton . . . Although
there would
be an urgent need for development were the above plans to be
implemented, nothing appears
to have been done to secure additional track or railway facilities,
despite the somewhat tight deadline. A Network Rail manager
said
it would take at least seven years before anything could begin but, to
June, they had heard nothing in the way of requests for such
development.
Secret Meetings In
very early 2008, (e-mails
requesting information have been ignored)
a group of people got together and decided that Braystones
would be an ideal place to build a nuclear power plant. For
over
a year the residents were kept in ignorance of the Master Plan being
hatched by The West Cumbria Renaissance Group and others.
Our MP
would have us believe that, despite his extraordinarily strong bias in
favour of the nuclear industry (being an ex-PR man for the firm no
doubt helped his beliefs) he, too, was kept in the dark until
just after Christmas, 2008. By this time, plans were well
advanced. The Renaissance Group, having ear-marked a couple
of
"suitable" sites had, by then, been looking round for a suitable power
generator to convince. It found one in RWE n-Power, a German
company.
Germany is phasing out nuclear sites on health and
environmental
grounds and the subject is likely to be a major issue in the
forthcoming elections in September, 2009. Their government
discovered that if it pursued the
ambition to be nuclear-free it may have to rely on
outsiders to meet the increasing energy demands of Germany.
Some
of their neighbours are not people with whom they would like to do
business, so it is necessary to find a suitable source, where the
politicians are suitably gullible/biased and easily persuaded of the
merits of
a highly toxic process.
Unfit
for Germans - eminently
suitable
for Cumbrians
Source: http://de.indymedia.org/2009/09/259907.shtml Photos from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rassloff/sets/72157622253921952/ In
Britain, already panicking
about the potential energy shortfall and
rapidly-rising unemployment, the fag-end
Labour government would not take much persuading to follow any rainbow
in the hope of finding the pot of gold. Although the
NDA
(Nuclear De-commissioning Authority) was set up to clear aging sites,
its
business rapidly turned to buying good will from the people of Cumbria.
New roads, new public buildings, new health facilities have all been
within the ambit of the "decommissioning" authority. Their
largesse
has caused great concern. Some of the things they are doing
have
absolutely nothing to do with decommissioning nuclear plants.
In
fact, the agency has been likened to a slush fund. The
future
development of many projects has been linked to the area's acceptance
of nuclear new-build; do this or you won't get these
improvements. Several projects even have nothing at all to
do
with industry, and many people believe that improvements to, for
example, the local hospital, should be nationally funded by central
government, not dependent on nuclear development and the
decommissioning agency. In most other areas this is
certainly
the case.
The Energy Coast Masterplan has now been brought out into the open. Residents were told just ten days before the deadline for consultation closed. Small wonder then that a crowd of over 300 people crammed into the Civic Hall in Whitehaven to have their say on the 18th March, 2009. Have a listen to this from You and Yours. (Broadcast on 4/5/09, .mp3 file - 15 mins approx.)  Lying about Resident's views This was followed a couple of weeks later by smaller, local meetings, hosted by RWE. At the Beckermet meeting residents voted unanimously against nuclear new-build on green-field sites. Conveniently, minutes were not taken at either the Whitehaven or Beckermet meeting. However, the minutes of the West Cumbrian Sites Stakeholders Group of Copeland Council, for the subsequent meeting - which was, conveniently, minuted, recorded that David Moore, chairman, had said: '. . . the meetings had been well attended with over 300 people, which he felt showed significant commitment from the people of West Cumbria and a clear message was received that there was very strong support for new build . . . ' (WCSSG minutes for the 2/4/09, Para 10, Page 3). A letter objecting to this distortion was sent on 23rd July, 2009. A few weeks later we received a reply saying that Mr. Moore was just stating his impression, and that we should read further. In fact, we had read further, but the impression was still that Mr. Moore was deliberately trying to mislead by stating something that was, to most people at least, untrue. Consider, if you will, that there has been no attempt to seek the views of residents over such important matters. All that has happened so far is a series of announcements. At the end of this period (of ten days), we were allowed to put our views to the government who have repeatedly said that the nuclear industry is the only viable option - in other words their minds are closed and the decision has been made. As confirmation of our view that residents were not in favour, we were happy to read the following in the Whitehaven News article, dated 26/11/09: 'At a lively public meeting last March many Braystones/ Beckermet residents voiced strong opposition to any reactor development and will have another chance to make their feelings known when energy company RWE npower unveil its plans at an exhibition early in the New Year.' Source: http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/tide_turns_on_site_for_nuke_plant_span_style_color_red_add_your_comments_span_1_641934?referrerPath=2.1816/home At a meeting in Manchester, of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, on the 18th September, 2009, the point was made that investigations will be made into where the hole for burying the waste will be sited. The residents might have a say in whether they want this facility. However, each of the proposed nuclear reactors will also be repositories for high level waste - each storing their own until it can be buried or dealt with in some unspecified manner. No mention has been made of consulting the residents around the proposed sites as to whether they want to take part in this high-risk strategy. The sole consideration so far has been the presence of the reactor. We believe that far greater honesty is required, so that people (including those without technical expertise) can make a fully-informed decision. At a lecture at Sellafield's Visitor Centre, on 16th June, a Mr.Tim Knowles, from Cumbria County Council, stated that there was very strong support for nuclear new-build in West Cumbria, and he showed slides on which this same point was made. When questioned, he could not justify his statements, nor could he explain his basis for them. Both Kirksanton and Beckermet communities have expressed their strong antipathy to the proposed developments. Mr. Knowles told the audience that he had worked for Sellafield for 20 years.   Actually,
despite all the
propaganda, it seems there may be some
dissenters, as these posters appeared around
the area shortly after RWE's proposals were announced to an unsupecting
public. We understand that attempts have been made to ensure
the
scale is proportionate, so the 240 ft. high buildings are depicted
reasonably accurately against their settings. No attempt has
been made to exaggerate the scale of the proposed development.
Despite having produced detailed plans of the proposed development, RWE
have not yet come up with any model or photo-montage to illustrate how
the result will affect the landscape.
Nice People to Deal With? Naturally, most people would like to think that there is such a thing as honesty and openness involved in the information made available regarding nuclear power and its effects on health and the environment - so that they can make an informed decision when it comes to future energy production. Sadly, there is no such thing. Several good short films can be seen at Tenner Films. (Then click on "Completed to view a selection of projects completed and available. Please complete the on-line vote for/against nuclear new build.) Our favourite film is entitled Minister. It has Tony Benn explaining how, as Energy Minister, he was never told the things which he was supposed to know - like the Windscale fire, for example! Generally, people would like to think that these big energy companies are straightforward and honest people to deal with - as that is certainly the image they try to project. Sadly, generally speaking, they are not. Sometimes, with state backing, they do things which an ordinary citizen would spend years in jail for. For example, back in 1985 the French government got a bit depressed about Greenpeace messing up their atomic bomb tests. As a result of their frustration the French decided to blow up the Greenpeace vessel, Rainbow Warrior, in Auckland harbour. Such was the diligence of the French agents that they overlooked the presence of a photographer on board when they decided to Do Their Thing. Sadly, he died. Back in 1974 there was the mysterious case of Karen Silkwood. As a result of books and a film, starring Meryl Streep, the basics are well-known world-wide. A union activist who became contaminated at the nuclear power plant where she worked, she decided to become a whistle-blower, making public the poor safety procedures and disregard of regulations at the plant, including exposure of workers to contamination, faulty respiratory equipment and improper storage of samples. She also alleged that safety standards had slipped because of demands for increased production, which had resulted in employees being given tasks for which they were poorly trained. She also alleged that Kerr-McGee employees handled the fuel rods improperly and that the company falsified inspection records. En route to meet a New York Times reporter - apparently with a sheaf of evidence - her car was involved in a fatal accident. No papers were found in the car. The plant owners, Kerr-McGee, ultimately settled out of court for $1.38 million, admitting no liability. According to Richard L. Rashke's book "The Killing of Karen Silkwood", investigators into Silkwood's death as well as into the Kerr-McGee corporation and Cimarron plant received death threats, one of these investigators disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the witnesses to the Silkwood incident apparently committed suicide very shortly before she was to testify in court against the Kerr-Mcgee corporation under oath about the alleged happenings at the plant. According to Rashke's book, the Silkwood family's legal team were followed, threatened with violence, and even physically assaulted. The book also claims that the 44 pounds of missing plutonium (enough to make four nuclear weapons) at the plant were stolen in part of a secret underground plutonium smuggling ring that many government agencies including the highest levels of government and international intelligence agencies were involved with. Of course, as is the case with many employers, it is much easier to get rid of troublesome staff intent on adhering to "The Rules", rather than actually amend practices to ensure that good protocols are followed. The nuclear industry has its own rogues gallery of people who thought they knew better than their bosses, and threatened to embarrass management by revealing what really goes on behind the high-security fences. People like Rodney Fordham, John Taylor and Ross Hesketh paid the penalty; being forced out of employment because they dared to illustrate failings that endangered not only those on the site, but also the public. A few years after Rainbow Warrior, there was a bit of a scandal over the French government's involvement with Elf. Then, EDF were accused of hiring a company of private detectives, "Kargus Consultants", to spy on environmental groups such as Greenpeace. According to the Sunday Times, on 26th April this year, these investigators also infomally sought information on campaigners from MI5. Nice to know that by objecting, quite legally and rationally to the nuclear industry you are sticking your neck out so far that it attracts the attention of Big Brother (who, somewhat annoyingly, otherwise doesn't want to know your views), and may prove fatal.Kargus Consultants, run by Thierry Lorho, a French ex-intelligence officer, apparently admitted to breaking French laws by organising the hacking of Greenpeace's computer systems in France. However, according to the reports, he insisted that he was obeying instructions from EDF security officials. (Who were sacked when the facts became known - there has to be un bouc émissaire.) Needless to say, EDF said they wholeheartedly condemn any method aimed at obtaining information illegally. One has to try very hard not to be cynical and suggest that they were happy enough to use whatever information they were given without any qualms as to its origins. Did they never think to ask how such material had been obtained? Hmm. Keep trying to believe that. Studsvik is a company which has commenced operations in the UK. It has places in Workington and Whitehaven. Our understanding is that the idea behind the plant at Lillyhall, Workington, is that radioactive materials are sent to be mixed with other metals before being shipped out for re-use. A bit like diluting any poison. By spreading the radioactivity over a larger area, the harmful effects are diminished. This may mean that the metals end up being very close to vulnerable areas, but who cares? In June, 2009, a report appeared in the local press: THE BOSS of the £6 million Studsvik recycling plant at Lillyhall has left the company. It was announced that Studsvik UK president Mark Lyons, right, was leaving after an audit with “immediate effect”. A statement said that an internal audit found income from projects, mostly in 2008, to be overstated by about £1 million, primarily attributable to 2008. The amount will impact results for the second quarter.” Mr Lyons has been succeeded by Sam Usher. The statement added: “The changeover of presidents is taking place after continued losses in project operations.” Mr Lyons, from Northumberland, worked for Studsvik since the Swedish firm bought his company in 2005. Mr Usher was previously vice president of business development in Studsvik UK. The Joseph Noble Road facility was opened officially by Phil Davies, head of waste and nuclear materials at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, on May 6. The Metal Recycling Facility (MRF) decontaminates scrap metal from the nuclear industry for further use in industry.It was the first plant of its kind to open in the UK and the first new nuclear site licence to be granted in two decades.The facility is expected to begin work next month, when the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII) will be requested to give final consent for the receipt of contaminated metals onto the site. The plant, which created up to 30 jobs, was first granted a Nuclear Site Licence by the UK Health & Safety Executive in 2008. The Lillyhall facility was given the RoSPA occupational health and safety award for the engineering construction industry sector in 2009. Source: http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/business/studsvik_boss_leaves_after_cash_audit_1_570199?referrerPath=home Of course, bribery is rife in large industries where huge sums of money are involved. The sheer scale of it means that inevitably, government becomes embroiled in it. Areva, manufacturers of one of the reactors being considered for new sites in the UK, is 66% owned by the French government (whose ethics are obvious from the Greenpeace story above) and 33% by Siemens. Anyone interested in the background to Siemens can find references on the internet. The results might include how the company ended up paying $1.6 billion - the largest fine in modern corporate history, or the article about the whistleblower - a former Siemens employee - whose "life was thrown into chaos" when he reported financial irregularities to his superiors. Bribery was just a "line item", according to one source. "A mid-level accountant called Rheinhard Siekaczek says that from 2002 to 2006 he oversaw an annual bribery budget of about $40 million to $50 million at Siemens." Source: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/02/at-siemens-bribery-was-just-a-line-item.html Are you beginning to see how attractive new nuclear might be to people about to be made redundant who have become used to the champagne lifestyle? Not yet convinced? Try this: Michael Christoforakos, the former Siemens boss in Greece who was arrested in Germany last week, could become a key witness in the ongoing investigation into the bribery scandal at the German engineering giant. While Greek prosecutors want the German authorities to extradite Michael Christoforakos back to Greece to face corruption charges there, prosecutors in Munich may prefer to hold on to him. Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,633198,00.html So, we have allegations of premature deaths (whether deliberate or accidental), body-part-snatching, data falsification, half a century of pollution of almost every conceivable kind, with scientists readily acknowledging that they are deliberately releasing toxic metals and chemicals into the environment to discover the effect on living things - including humans, and yet we are still supposed to accept that they are decent, honest, caring people. What is more disturbing is that they have convinced people in power to believe their falsehoods. There is nothing green, sustainable or economically viable about this industry. So how can anyone justify its expansion? That we have MPs so gullible might be taken to illustrate why they are preoccupied with their expense fiddles.  Of course, Sellafield is not alone in the pollution stakes. No matter which plant you look at there are environmental consequences. Have a look at Savannah River sites - http://www.bredl.org/pdf/SRSfactsheet12oct02.PDF if you are in any doubt. There are many, many more examples on-line. Fight To The Finnish? In
Ranua - a municipality
located in Lapland, Finland - the soil and groundwater are in danger of
being contaminated by uranium prospecting and mining. On November the
16th 2009, the municipal council of Ranua will give their final stance
on the prospecting. The stance will most likely be positive, unless an
action is taken to turn the municipality board members' minds: the
Center Party (KESK) members have made a binding group decision to vote
in favour of the prospecting.
An uranium mine in Lapland would lead to all the people who now get their livelihood on berry or mushroom picking, collecting wild plants, reindeer herding, fishing or agriculture to loose their source of income. Mining and radioactive waste in the vulnerable northern nature would also destroy these vast areas of Europe's wilderness for forever. In many countries, politicians and companies are watching Finnish policy on nuclear energy and uranium mining in the hope that it will start a new trend on nuclear energy. So this is not only a local issue but important to all the people in Finland and other parts of the world! On the 1st of September, 2008, Areva Resources Finland Oy, submitted their application for a mining claim in the area of Asentolamminoja, on the border between the Ranua and Rovaniemi municipalities, to the Ministry of Employment and Economy. The claim area comprises several marshes and small lakes, that are connected to the groundwater reserves. The area is part of the watershed of the Simo river (i.e. the water flows into the river), which is designated as a NATURA2000 area. There would be, in sum, over 10 kilometres of drillings and they would extend below the level of the groundwater reserves. The Geological Survey Centre of Finland, that participates in the prospecting, denies the existence of the risk, despite the fact that spoiling of the groundwater has often been a direct consequence of uranium prospecting. Around the world, uranium mining has produced extreme environmental destruction, and in Europe it has been abolished - precisely for environmental reasons. AREVA, the company active in Ranua, is responsible for, among other things, enormous environmental destruction in their mining regions in Niger, and in France for the algae-based processing of mining tailings (i.e. leftover rock & sediment), which created a public scandal. In Finland, AREVA is also active with building the new (EPR) reactor in Olkiluoto, which has now turned out to be a fiasco. Ranua-based protestors have tried to inform the decision-makers and residents about the problems of uranium mining. At different events, they have collected names to petition for a ban on uranium mining; written to regional papers and arranged informational events, among other things. However, a local resident's protest has quite limited power of influence, when put against the massive lobbying machine of the uranium power industry, and the state's energy policies, that favour mining in northern Finland. Source: http://us.mc1124.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ranuarescue@gmail.com Political
Incentives
On the 9/12/09, Fernandez Rick wrote,
commenting on an article about Al Gore having misled the Copenhagen
Conference on Climate Change:
"Scientists at the University of East
Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature
data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
“Scientific Method is supposed to allow for others to double-check the work leading to the theory. In other words, starting with the same data and applying the same methods, I should get the same results. But in the case of Anthropocentric Global Warming, this is impossible. The CRU, in response to Freedom of Information Requests for the raw data on which they based their dire predictions of doom, first stalled, then admitted they had destroyed the raw data! We mere mortals are expected to simply take their word their conclusions are accurate. I have to wonder with all the tens of millions of dollars in funding CRU enjoyed, why they could not purchase an extra hard drive to save that raw data! The Russians are also questioning the validity of the data. We can see that a lot of money and political power has been invested in so call “global warming” that if the general population sees this as a lie and a hoax, many well-known institutions of government and media will likely collapse from the scandal. The establishment is desperate fighting for its life. And we should expect them to take any and all desperation measures to prolong and preserve their status." Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece Al
Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first
carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology. The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes. Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in. Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt. Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is. "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it." Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.htmlMr. Gore, whose book and film, "An Inconvenient Truth", successor to a somewhat less successful earlier tome, "Earth in the Balance", sparked the current paranoia over global warming, is already reaping the rewards of his efforts and scaremongering, it would seem. According to reports, it would appear that Mr. Gore's attendance at Copenhagen was scheduled to include a talk with what are referred to as "$1200 handshakes". In other words, attendees of his lectures would pay $1200 for the priviledge of listening to the great man. Frankly, there is a lot in this paragon's background that doesn't lend itself to close inspection. There is too great an interest in making millions of dollars for a start. Then there is the incompatibility of his stance on the envrironment with that of his business history and investments. Like the Bush family's links to oil companies. Try http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm for an appraisal. A contract John Hutton bestowed on EDF was for £12.5 billion . . . it is reported that Mr Hutton will be appointed to nuclear power company EDF’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel, which advises the firm’s senior management, and includes Lord Patten, the former Tory Cabinet Minister The energy deal saw EDF – which is controlled by the French government – take over British Energy and its eight UK nuclear power stations. It also gave the firm control of most of the sites earmarked for building new nuclear power stations in Britain, including Sizewell in Suffolk and Dungeness in Kent. If his move goes ahead, Mr Hutton will join a steady stream of former senior Labour colleagues taking highly paid jobs in the private sector, such as former Trade and Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, former Home Secretary David Blunkett and ex-Defence Minister Ivor Caplin. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213023/Minister-lands-job-French-power-firm--just-year-giving-ahead-British-nuclear-plants.html: How long before others join the gravy train? Some local politicians must surely be assured of an lucrative extra-curricular job as a reward for their distortion of the truth and first-class salesmanship? The elevation of Copeland MP, Mr. Reed, to minister for the North West is only the first step on this grungey ladder, we're sure. Back to the Bad Old Days Mr. Mayall, of the Environment Agency, said at the above-mentioned WCSSG meeting that: |
| "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) |
| For further information on this substance, try http://www.wcssg.co.uk/ea/eabriefingnote-sb125toair.pdf - which, despite its WCSSG url, is apparently really produced by the Environment Agency. Another blurring of the lines and removal of apparent independence? |
| 'A decision by SL to resume the reprocessing of spent fuel is almost certain to lead 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.) |
| This from a body whose
aims are supposed to be protection of
the
public, not merely supporting the industry it is supposedly regulating.
If the
increased levels are now deemed satisfactory, why were earlier ones set
lower? According to one reliable source: |
| Antimony and its compounds are dangerous to human health. In low levels, these materials can irritate the eyes and lungs. They may also cause stomach pain, diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach ulcers. At higher doses, antimony and its compounds can cause lung, heart, liver, and kidney damage. At very high doses, they can cause death. |
| If this were the sole material being discharged or leaked from Sellafield, it would surely be cause for concern, but as we note below, there have been so many "incidents", resulting in many emissions - both deliberate and accidental - of many different, but equally noxious chemicals. Most of which will find its way into the various food chains. Of course, politicians all tell us that there is no link between nuclear power stations and poor health. In fact: |
The (German) KiKK study covered the period from 1980 to 2003. It was divided into two study periods: the first eleven years of operation of a power reactor and the remaining years. This was necessary as studies had shown that the risk was higher in the first case than in the second. The potential for different results according to reactor age was addressed in the KiKK study. The environment around 16 German nuclear power plants was studied. To quote from the report (http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/kikk.html): The distance of the home to the nearest nuclear power plant site on the day of diagnosis (for cases), or, respectively, to the analogue reference day (for controls) was determined as measure of the distance. Radiation exposure could not be taken into consideration since no measured results are available nor is a modelling of radiation exposure reasonably possible. The distance between home and reactor was taken as an alternative to radiation exposure. Study population: 1,592 cases and 4,735 controls Overall, the study confirmed the correlation between the vicinity of the home at the day of diagnosis and the risk to contract cancer or leukaemia before the 5th birthday. However, the study cannot produce evidence, as to which risk factors cause this relationship. The distance of the home to the nearest nuclear power plant site was determined within an accuracy of 25 m on average. • It was found that all types of cancer as well as leukaemia occurred significantly more frequently in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (within a radius of 5 km) than in further distant areas. The findings for all tumours can be essentially attributed to the findings for leukaemia. • This results in a negative downward trend; meaning the cancer risk increases with the increasing vicinity to the reactor site. • It was found that the willingness of the cases or controls to participate in the study strongly depended on the distance from the home to the reactor. Thus, there is a self-selection in Part 2 (case-control study with interviews) which does not allow a transfer of findings from this part of the investigation to the first part (without interviews). However, this had no influence on the overall study findings. In detail, the following trend was found: a statistically significant monotonously decreasing trend of risk by distance was found: for all the diseases under study, largely caused by leukaemia In other words, the closer you live to a nuclear power plant, the greater the risk. The KiKK report adds: "What this case-control study cannot answer, is what causes cancer." Interesting then that so many people - some desperately unqualified, tell us that Sellafield and the nuclear industry is safe. How can this be verified if they don't know what has caused the link discovered in the above report? |
|
Happily,
as is usual in
such instances, government advice was
sought. WCSSG's Environmental Health sub-group
wrote to the
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment
(COMARE) asking for a view on this KiKK report. The
response was duly read out at a subsequent WCSSG meeting, although it
wasn't put on the website. It appears (in the view
of at
least one expert) that the COMARE response sought to "downplay" the
relevance of the KiKK report. When challenged about
some
aspects of the view sent to WCSSG, COMARE stated that their response
"did
not represent a formal position and that they had not issued a
formal statement on the KiKK study".
One wonders just what
their response was meant to be, in that case. Formally asked
by
a formal group for a statement, they produce something that apparently,
when challenged on its content they cannot justify, they then change to
being something unofficial! What would be the purpose of
anyone
approaching them for anything other than the official view?
What
would have happened if they had not been challenged? Also,
whether this was made
clear to the WCSSG at the earliest opportunity has yet to be clarified.
Hopefully they will not have been left with the impression
that
the earlier (albeit a satisfactorily pro-nuclear) view was the official
one. (ref:
Dodging the evidence, leukemias and nuclear power plants)
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.) |
The NDA's Real Aims? From
the start it has been
mooted whether the NDA (Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority) were stepping outside their ambit by their
actions - being profligate even to the extent that decommissioning
exercises were running
short of funds. It was also suggested by some that the real
aim
was to ask for a far higher selling price for Sellafield land (with all
its perceived advantages) than the industry would countenance.
Hence alternative sites had to be found: Kirksanton and
Braystones. By promoting these as potential areas for
development, the NDA's prices have been kept within reasonable limits.
Quite how the NDA can justify its role in the recent propaganda exercises is beyond us. They are glorified estate agents, that is all, yet the power their finances bestows on them is frightening. A recent news article appeared on the BBC website: |
Nuclear agency defends pay-outs The
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has said that the bonuses paid
out to members of staff would be good news for taxpayers.
The Cumbria-based agency, which was set up to oversee the clean-up of the UK's nuclear sites, has released the information in its annual report. It revealed that some staff members received pay-outs of up to £25,000 on top of their annual salary. An NDA spokesman said it was important to retain top people. Speaking on BBC Radio Cumbria, Bill Hamilton from the NDA, said that all bonuses were performance-related. "Everyone, from the admin assistant to the chief executive, is eligible for bonus dependent on a number of individual or corporate objectives," he said. We
may be missing
something, but surely the assets being sold off belong to the taxpayer,
not the NDA. The employees are already being amply rewarded
for
their efforts, so why does the taxpayer have to pay twice?
|
| This
site is under continual development. We intend, using this
site
and
by regular Tweeting, 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. |
|
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. |