Home (this page)	Opinion	The Voice of Experience	Editorial

DECC Announcement, 15th July, 2010

Charles Hendry, Minister of State for Energy, announced in Parliament today that DECC plan to re-consult on the Energy National Policy Statements this Autumn, saying:

“Today I am announcing that the Government will be launching a re-consultation in the autumn on the draft energy National Policy Statements following the consultation undertaken by the previous administration earlier this year, and in particular due to changes which have been made to the Appraisal of Sustainability for the Overarching Energy National Policy Statement.”

I am aware that many consultation respondents live locally to sites that were nominated to be included on the Nuclear National Policy Statement as suitable for new nuclear power stations, and are very keen for further information on what is happening on sites. We are currently analysing the responses received on sites and in the Autumn we will publish the latest Nuclear National Policy Statement and the Government response to the consultation which closed in February 2010. This will include further information on the sites that the coalition Government view as potentially suitable for deployment of new nuclear power stations by 2025

We take this as confirmation of our assertion that the original process was flawed and a manipulation by the previous government to defeat democracy.

Several news items have been added to the "What the Press Think" page - apologies for the delays in up-dating the site.

Since our first involvement with the nuclear expansion proposals, we have expressed concern that the policitians were not being honest or impartial about the situation. Indeed, in our presentation to the Select Inquiry at Westminster, earlier this year, we stated our view that, despite his protestations to the contrary, Mr. E. Miliband had already formed an opinion - even before the evidence had been gathered in for him to assess. We said then that the consultation was merely a box-ticking exercise and that the decision had already been made. This was, naturally, denied.

It was interesting to listen to the ex-DECC minister talking, on Radio 4's news programme on 19th June, 2010, about the decision by the new government to stop the multi-million pound loan that would provide Sheffield Forgemasters with the wherewithal to build a new plant to manufacture the specialised steel required for nuclear reactors. (We note elsewhere that there may well be difficulties in obtaining such supplies as currently the sole supplier is in Japan.)

Mr. E. Miliband repeatedly stated that the decision to halt the loan would seriously impede the nuclear development programme. He spent some time stating why the nuclear expansion - for which the special steel would be required - was vital for future power production. This left no doubt in our mind that he had, as we suggested, already made the decision, and that the whole of the "consultation" process thereafter was sham. After all, the closure of some steelworks and the setting up of new ones doesn't happen overnight; long-term plans are required. Add to that the involvement of a certain Labour peer whose morals seem to us to be highly questionable . . .

Back in March, one of the last things to be "buried" by the old government was yet another consultation exercise, this time to ignore (sorry - gather,) opinions on proposals to set a fixed price for waste and spent fuel disposal from new build. The basic idea being akin to a subsidy by another name: allow the developers to set a price for the future clean up and disposal of their waste. Naturally, this can be done well in advance of any decommissioning date, with the result that (inevitable) cost over-runs and the effects of inflation would be the responsibility of the tax-payer.

We tried to complete the on-line form, but sensed that it was yet another sham. We have no doubt that the mechanism was correct, in the same way that 2+2=4, but that didn't make the basic premise correct. The crux of the matter was that there was really no need for such a system to have been mooted! All polluters are responsible for their waste, why should the nuclear industry be any different?

Greenpeace have circulated some informative documents: European Commission Green Paper, Independent Assessor's Report, Greenpeace Briefing on the Proposals.

Conspiracy theorists might be intrigued to note the EC proposals for a European grid for electricity and gas. Given that most European countries do not like nuclear, it may seem that the UK is set to become a dirty boilerhouse, supplying electricity to other countries - whose own residents don't want to host nuclear development.

Amongst some of the very first revelations from the new coalition government is the fact that the out-going group had substantially disguised the true cost of the nuclear clean-up.

The theme has continued in the Sunday Times of the 25th May, stating that, "Future costs of safe waste disposal had not been properly accounted for."
It went on to say that there appeared to be a £3 billion 'black hole'. In the interim, lots of investigations continue into frauds involving carbon trading.
Manipulation of the cost of carbon emissions continues apace.

Elsewhere, the bandwagon rolls on with continued misleading statements re. the credentials of the nuclear industry, including an article in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/22/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-oil-spills. This article seems to have a strange attitude to the deaths of coalminers and oil-rig workers, and promotes nuclear as being a cleaner option resulting in fewer deaths. Perhaps we should quote power costs as the number of megawatt hours produced per death? Call us picky, but we feel that no death is "acceptable".

The writers assure us that the nuclear waste will be safely disposed of in concrete and steel containers from which no radioactive material will ever leak, as it is a tried and tested method. This prompted one reader to ask how this could be known and whether there were any 17th century containers which demonstrated the infallibility of the method. An obvious counter to this, of course, would be the abandonment of the U.S. Yucca Mountain dump (repository - sorry).

Others compare the BP oil spill off the coast of Florida with the Chernobyl disaster. Sad though the effect of the oil-spill are, they pale into insignficance alongside the potential and actual consequences of a nuclear accident.

We have received an up-date from Stop Hinkley, which tells us of a recent book from the New York Academy of Science, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment". It has been authored by Alexey Yablokov of the Centre for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassilly Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenkov of the Institution of Radiation Safety in Minsk, Belarus. More than 5,000 published articles were examined - most written in Slavic languages and never before translated. The authors concluded that the accident, which occurred as a result of human error (and is thus eminently repeatable elsewhere in the world) resulted in radiation 100 times the contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also point out that radioactive pollution is no respecter of boundaries - "One nuclear reactor can contaminate the entire northern hemisphere." " Contaminate" seems to hide the true devastation that would be experienced.

Total fallout from Chernobyl is now estimated to have been in the region of 10 billion curies, and this has resulted in the death of 985,000 people between 1986 and 2004. There has also been an alarming decrease in the percentage of healthy children being born to irradiated parents in Belarus, the Ukraine, and European Russia - down from 80% to under 20%.

The Public Accounts Committee seems not to rate the Department of Energy and Climate Change very highly.
The Public Accounts Committee Report can be found here. For an editorial comment, see here: Editorial

Misleading Information

We have now received a breakdown of the figures supplied to the Energy Select Committee's Inquiry in respect of consultations carried out in the region. In Braystones and its neighbourhood, a total of 37 leaflets were "dropped". It may be churlish to suggest that this actually confirms our statement that very few of the residents were aware of the proposals. The figures seem vastly inflated, which would appear to make the exercise more worthwhile whilst supporting the industry's assertions that they have consulted widely - when they haven't! The figures supplied to us by DECC are:

West Cumberland Times & Star (including the Whitehaven News): 43,811
West Cumbrian Gazette: 45,003
Whitehaven News: 35,023

This, they suggest, makes a total of 124,000 in an average week. In fact, you will have observed, the Whitehaven News figures appear to have been counted twice. Not only that, but by using "readership" figures rather than circulation figures, the number of potential consultees is again enhanced. The main supplier of such readership figures is the Press Gazette, which admits that they are not realistic figures at all. In fact, a reader can be someone who has looked at the paper once, for as little as ten minutes, in the preceding year!

The circulation figures, which we think should have been used, from the Press Gazette's website, are as follows:

West Cumberland Times & Star (including the Whitehaven News): 16,182 West Cumbrian Gazette: 27,792

Thus the total likely readers of the Department of Energy & Climate Change adverts would be more like 43,794 - almost a third of the figure supplied to the Select Committee. Strange the way the bias always works in their favour!

A rough guess would suggest that as few as one in four residents actually received information in this form.

Carbon Trading News
The trading in permits to pollute stemming from the Kyoto protocol seems to be yet another permit to gamble by trading in nebulous intangible articles.
The intangible assets being difficult to trace, also lend the system open to fraud. The market is deemed to be worth in excess of £60 billion, so it will attract the big players.

At least two companies have been suspended already: SGS UK and DNV in Norway. Seven people have already been arrested in a £38 million fraud , and there
are investigations taking place in France and the Netherlands.

Arguments from ill-informed people elsewhere in the country in favour of new-build nuclear, have tried to reiterate the fallacy that there have been no deaths
as a result of the nuclear industry. We have also been told that more people get killed on Cumbria's roads. The fact of the matter is that the compensation scheme
has paid out claims on 122 deaths since 1982. Perhaps not as bad as one might imagine, but a different complexion is bestowed by the other figure of a total
1500 claims in the same period. The restrictions imposed when assessing claims could well be the reason for the small percentage being successful.

A seminar, "Justifying UK Nuclear New Build - Call for Independent Inquiry", was held in the Palace of Westminster on 11/3/10. Our report can be found here.
A newspaper article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/11/independent-inquiry-nuclear-power-stations

The inquiry into the future of nuclear in the north west heard evidence from selected people, including Phil Woolas, M.P., on 9/11/10.
Again we were told that there is overwhelming support for the developments. Again, we have to ask, where is the justification for this repeated assertion?
An application under the FOI for his evidence to substantiate this statement suggests that there is none!
Further snippets from the "debate" are on the Voice of Experience page.

Submissions to the inquiry on Portcullis House, London, were made by people with an interest in the area last week. A video recording of the event can be found here.

Apparently DECC "went out of their way" to ensure consultation with local residents, recognising that even though Sellafield and Braystones were so close together they
should have counted as one, it would be kinder to the residents to have separate meetings, hence the Beckermet and Calder Bridge ones.
How kind. Sadly, no mention of how the meetings were unanimously against the Braystones and Kirksanton proposals!
How to mislead an inquiry without actually lying. Sir Humphrey lives! For an opinion on the Whitehaven meeting click here. We have to record that the local M.P., Mr. Jamie Reed was absent,
and has not been seen at any of these meetings, which some found rather odd.

Transcripts of the various meetings around the country have been published on the DECC website: DECC transcripts
We would urge you to read not just the one for Braystones (Braystone - transcript of meeting on 16/1/10) and Kirksanton, but others, too. Especially the one of the meeting at Hartlepool
which might indicate the subterfuge employed by the politicians.

Wow! Only nine months after the event, the Whitehaven News seems to have latched on to what is going on. See the Editorial page.

Welcome news from the Environmental Law Foundation, whose submission can be found here. Other pertinent news can be found here.

The impact of the nuclear industry on wildlife might be gathered from the following link: Sunday Times article, 28/2/2010

View the effects of the recent storms on the River Ehen - 1 mile away from the proposed
new nuclear developments. One of three links posted by local residents.

During the course of research for 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:

'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)

Out of Control?

Despite the objections of local councillors, 56,000m³ a year of radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear plants is planned for Keekle Head and Lillyhall, near Workington, in Cumbria.   However, 26000m³ of radioactive waste is already coming to Lillyhall landfill each year.

A meeting to discuss the proposed expansion of the dumping is scheduled to take place on 25th May in Kendal. This is a widely opposed proposal - even the normally very pro-nuclear MP, Mr. Jamie Reed, has opposed the plan. Radiation Free Lakeland will speak in opposition. GdF Suez Watch are also opposing.

The current situation of dumping radiation waste at Lillyhall is unknown to anyone it seems - including the council officers in charge of the license, according to RAFL, whose enquiry revealed:

     according to the County Council and Copeland officials under "present conditions" the operators of Lillyhall landfill site can bring in as much high volume "Very Low Level" radioactive waste as they like;

     they have "no need" to apply for permission to do this- the "present conditions" run out in 2014 - there is no mention of radioactive waste.

Despite European legislation from 2004 - 2006 introducing even more stringent controls on what can be dumped in landfill sites, the council are of the opinion that Waste Recycling Group & Energy Solutions, who run the Lillyhall site, do not need planning permission.

No monitoring checks are carried out to control just what is being dumped - we are mindful of the Greenpeace video depicting the dangerously high levels of materials dumped at Drigg, see here (scroll down the page to find the video) - except in the event of a complaint, when an official might attend to inspect the site.   What skills or expertise that official might have to competently assess the dangers, we know not.

An example of the voluntarism professed necessary by central government and a foretaste of what will happen at Gosforth?

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.

The IPC - A Fair and Independent Arbiter?

According to the Private Eye, 1257, the new head of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, John Saunders, has purchased shares in the National Grid, National Power, Powergen (now E.on), Innogy and Norther Ireland Electric. The information was originally a straight-forward request for information, but that was declined. The Eye requested the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, and believes that the nature of the information revealed may be the cause of the original rejection. We trust that they are not suggesting that there might be any bias merely because of a pecuniary interest!

Another source of information has uncovered dealings between the government and E.on in respect of land deals. A sort of "we'll give you that if you give us planning permission for that" thing. Nice to know that despite what the Miliband and Browns of this world say, nothing has yet been decided, but it does make one wonder how these things can be discussed at all until a decision has actually been fairly arrived at.

A Mess of the Mosses

A disappointing submission on behalf of Natural England, ostensibly protector of the landscape, flora and fauna of the greater countryside, makes barely any objection to the proposed removal of Braystones from the Cumbrian landscape. This despite the listing on their own site that observes in respect of Silver Tarn, Hollas and Harnsey Mosses:

These wetland habitats are becoming increasingly scarce in the intensively farmed lowlands both locally and nationally. This is one of only two known examples in the country of a suite of intact, small, kettlehole formations, the other being Whitlaw Mosses National Nature Reserve in the Borders Region. The broad range of communities supported by this small site complement those of other lowland wetlands in West Cumbria. In addition Harnsey Moss is the best example of a small, nutrient rich tarn in this scheduling unit.

Source: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001998.pdf

It is difficult to see quite how the proposed RWE site could be built without changing the environment to the degree that all three of these SSIs will be destroyed. Furthermore, it is patently obvious that no relocation or mitigation could overcome the unique features of these sites.

The head of Natural England, Dr. Helen Phillips was appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), in 2006. 97% of the quango's funding of £273 million comes from the taxpayer via the department.

Natural England's current annual report contains the keynote statement:

Natural England is here to conserve and enhance the natural environment, for its intrinsic value, the wellbeing and enjoyment of people and the economic prosperity that it brings.

However, it would seem that when industry is involved, conservation and the enhancement of the natural environment must take a back seat. Quite how they justify the acceptance of 240' high reactor buildings in a rural environment is unknown. The website is stuffed with impressively designed documents studded with phrases like: "Natural England will be a distinctive public body committed to the environment and people", and "Sustainable use of the natural environment, so that the use of the land, freshwaters and seas does not compromise the natural environment."

Tell us again how they see the proposed nuclear development doing any of the things they profess to be protecting. If they cannot, then surely they should have put up far more in the way of objection when making their submission or at least demanded information on how these private power companies believe they can mitigate the impact on the natural beauty of this undeveloped countryside.

The House of Lords Debates the Policies

The link below takes you to debates in the House of Lords regarding EN-1. Lord Judd raised concerns on the cumulative impacts in West Cumbria and the Infrastructure Planning Commission decision-making. He also demonstrated the limits to the single-stage process vaunted by E. Miliband, showing that there will still be a requirement for consents and licensing to be acquired even before an application can get as far as the IPC..

EN-6, the site-specific nuclear paper will be discussed on the 9th March.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223-gc0002.htm

Lord Mandelson ready to go nuclear

Government close to signing a £170m agreement with Sheffield Forgemasters, the firm famous for the ‘supergun’ affair

LORD MANDELSON is close to sealing a £170m government-backed deal for a nuclear manufacturing facility just days after Corus mothballed its steel plant on Teesside.

The business secretary has been leading talks between Sheffield Forgemasters, the engineering firm, and Westinghouse, the nuclear reactor maker, for months about arranging a financing package for a 15,000-tonne press that would be used to make pressure vessels and castings for nuclear reactors.

Today these are made by a handful of highly specialised facilities, all located in Japan.

The deal with Sheffield, which gained notoriety in the 1990s when it was embroiled in the “Supergun affair” over arms sales to Iraq, would secure a critical piece of infrastructure for a new generation of nuclear reactors in Britain.

It is understood that a memorandum of understanding between the companies, the government and the European Investment Bank (EIB) is nearly complete.

Mandelson is under pressure after the Teesside closure left 1,600 industrial workers jobless. He hopes to make an announcement on the Sheffield deal as soon as this week. This could be delayed as final details were still being worked out this weekend but a broad outline has been agreed.

The government is expected to put up roughly half of the £170m project cost in cheap loans structured to comply with European Union rules on state aid. Westinghouse would contribute £50m, in the form of an upfront payment for reactor components, and the EIB would provide a smaller portion. Final investment would be subject to further due diligence.

The business department declined to comment.

Mandelson’s role in the talks is a reflection of his effort to involve the government more intimately in industrial policy. Nuclear is at the centre of Whitehall’s plans to reshape energy infrastructure and meet climate-change targets. At least six reactors are expected to be built over the next two decades — all by foreign-owned utilities.

The government has encouraged them to invest here but has pushed to keep as much work as possible in Britain. The programme is expected to create thousands of construction jobs. Sheffield Forgemasters’ history dates back to the 18th century. It ran into financial trouble in the early 2000s but has since been turned round by Tony Pedder, its chairman, who took over after a tough time running Corus.

The Sheffield negotations are part of a wider lobbying campaign among companies angling for a share of the nuclear building boom.

EDF, the French state-owned utility that bought British Energy last year, expects to build up to four new reactors. It has teamed up with Centrica, owner of British Gas, to share the cost.

Rivals Eon and RWE have formed a joint venture called Horizon Nuclear Power and intend to build at least two plants.

They will be able to use one of two reactor designs, the AP1000 from Westinghouse, and the EPR from Areva, the French state-owned group, that are being reviewed by the Nuclear Industry Inspectorate, the regulator.

EDF is expected to use Areva’s design. Eon and RWE, however, remain uncommitted and are thought to be under pressure from the government to go with Westinghouse so that the country is not reliant on a single design.

The first new reactor is not expected before 2017 and industry experts say the timeline is already slipping. This is due in part to wrangling between industry and government over subsidies.

Utilities are lobbying for a mechanism that ensures a minimum price for power so they can be sure they will be able to recoup the large upfront building costs. The government has said from the outset that it will not subsidise the industry.

Source: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article7034860.ece (Sunday Times, 21/2/2010)

We would have to comment that this seems very interesting. Elsewhere we point out that the high-grade steel for reactors is likely to be in short supply, due to the high demand from other countries - the sole provider of this material at present being Japan. Also interesting is the Westinghouse link instead of Areva. A cynic might think that it was highly convenient for Mandelson to have come up with this plan. But, surely, it would have been in the pipeline for months, if not years. Is there any link between this and the failure of the steel contract on Teesside which has resulted in 1600 jobs being lost? How could he possibly have predicted a demand for nuclear reactors all that time ago? Does anyone still believe that the proposed nuclear expansion is optional rather than government-imposed?

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."

Source: http://www.getnoticedonline.co.uk/news/general-news/nuclear-misinformation-is-pulling-the-wool-over-people-s-eyes-claim.html

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 - c lick 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. A proposed policy of nuclear development on this scale should surely have been brought to the attention of the wider audience. We can find no interest in educating the UK audience as to what the effect of the ten or eleven proposed developments will be. Despite our letters to a variety of programmes and presenters (Coast, Panorama, Look Northwest, Julia Bradbury, etc.) the omission is still painfully obvious. A pity, as most people are seeing only the nuclear is clean, green and CO2 free claim - which is blatently misleading. "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.

Argocat scanning the beach for radioactive material.

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. Don't mention the Nirex enquiry findings!

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

The view from the Nethertown road which will be concreted over.

RWE site will concrete over most of this vista.

Looking along the Braystones to Nethertown road - which will become part of the RWE proposed site. The beach is approximately 1/3rd mile to the right. Egremont and the nearest main road, the A595, are 3 miles to the left of the picture. In the centre of the picture the pile of Sellafield can be discerned. This is one of the casualties of the 1957 fire and is taking a lot of decommissioning. There are three Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the area, on both sides of the road: Silver Tarn, Harnsey Moss and Hollas Moss. Being dependent on the hydrology of the area, it is amazing that the Natural England quango can submit the opinion that the effects of flatteninng these hills and levelling off, inserting foundations for a 240' high reactor building and all its ancillary work can be "mitigated". We don't understand how this fits with their mission statement..

In the distance, about 15 miles away is the edge of the Cumbrian mountains,.

The plans on the left above were first 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,2009, 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.

Mr. Reed's denials worry us - the West Lakes Renaissance quango, proposers of the Energy Coast concept - minute a meeting in June, 2008, when they met the Prime Minister and Mr. Darling to put forward their ideas. Can we honestly believe that they went to Downing Street for such a vital meeting without informing such a staunch supporter of the nuclear industry? But why would an MP lie?

Unfit for Germans - eminently suitable for Cumbrians

50,000 Germans march to protest about nuclear power

5/9/09: over 10,000 German residents marched in protest about possible nuclear power stations should Angela Merkel be returned to power. Small wonder that RWE wants to come to the UK.
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.

Posters which appeared around Braystones area.

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 illustrate why they came to be 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.

The integrity of politicians, now just a joke, extends to the way they treat Scots, too. Have a look at the posting here about Machrihanish Airbase Community Company.

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.html

Mr. 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.

Source.: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8159960.stm

Tell me again, whose money is it?

The original item was written in 2009, but, surprise, surprise, here we are in 2010 and what do we read? How about this:

NMP in line for £50m fee from NDA

By Alan Irving

SELLAFIELD overlords Nuclear Management Partners are set to pick up a £50 million “well-done” fee on top of a £16.5 million dividend already earned. The money – from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority kitty – is for NMP’s good performance and efficiency managing Sellafield over the past 16 months.

The Whitehaven News can also reveal for the first time the salaries paid to Sellafield’s top executives who succeeded the former BNFL directors, seven of whom received loss of office pay-offs amounting to £8 million. These included former managing director Barry Snelson. He parted company with £2 million largely in compensation.

The 2008-9 accounts reveal that seven Nuclear Management Partner executives were paid more than £1 million between them for their first four months’ work at Sellafield. These included American managing director Bill Poulson and Bob Pedde, who was in charge for a short time before returning to the United States. Based on the first four months figures the present 19-strong Sellafield executive team will receive around £8.6 million between them in salaries for the 2009-10 financial year which will end shortly.

A Sellafield Ltd spokesman told The Whitehaven News: “Our team of executive directors are world leading experts in their respective fields with decades of experience of the nuclear industry both domestically and internationally. Their remuneration is a matter for the (consortium) companies which employ them - URS (American), Areva (France) and Amec (UK).

In comments to The Whitehaven News, Barry Snelson, also points out that of his £2 million loss of office compensation some £788,508 has gone in tax. He goes on: “I won’t protest about the coverage [in The Whitehaven News] or attempt to defend it but I want to correct some of the untruths which relate to the (previous) executive team. They won’t speak up for themselves but firstly they did not fare equally well. “BNFL always had a good redundancy scheme from which many generations have benefited especially those with long service and a high salary. Long serving executives did well but those with much shorter service much less well. “I just fortunately, or unfortunately, was Sellafield’s highest paid employee and had 30 years’ service with the company. “It is also unjust to claim that ‘they took their windfalls to other jobs in the industry.’ None of them work in Cumbria and only one could be said to have found permanent employment in the UK nuclear industry. One has had to move to America. One has moved to London for a job outside the industry. One works for an international project company on all sorts of projects, some nuclear. None of the other four have found permanent employment but have either only worked in a series of temporary jobs, all over the country, or have not worked at all.”

Ref.: Whitehaven News 11~3~2010

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?

The government's chief scientific advisor appeared on BBC's Hard Talk on 13 August 2009, talking to Stephen Sackur.
Sadly, the clip has disappeared from the BBC website as it is now time-expired, but the questions remain:

In view of his deliberate avoidance of the question relating to nuclear waste disposal, we have to ask what happened to ethics? Is the man a scientist or a politician?
What is the relevance of the proposed Nuclear Centre of Excellence to the pollution and waste problems? What guarantees are there that an answer will be found?
The Professor waffled for two minutes about the problem, but then ultimately failed completely to answer the fundamental question regarding waste disposal.

According to the Sunday Times, 28th February, 2010, Professor Beddington has a 50% shareholding in a company called "Marine Resources Assessment Group", set up in 1986.

The article goes on to reveal that the company has a contract with the UK government to manage fishing rights in the 200 mile exclusion zone around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.
As the contract has a five-year renewal period, it will presumably be up for renewal in 2011. Sources seem to indicate that the contract is worth over £1.4 million.
On taking up his present government position the professor resigned his directorship of MRAG, but apparently still has a 50.1% share holding, whilst his wife holds the balance.

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.

This site has been compiled over several months, 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.
A list of links is being compiled and will be incorporated shortly.

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.