26/1/12 Thorough Lack of Preparation In a typically jargonised document, running to 139 pages, the government has set out the current state of affairs for public health.   Entitled, "A public health outcomes framework for England, 2013-2016" and looking very pretty, it is interesting but somewhat scary to note (in Part One, Para. 3.7) that: Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents have only a placeholder - in other words there is no plan whatsoever for the protection of the public in the event of a major incident.   The placeholder admits that further work need to be done even to formulate a definition for the item, but at present there are no co-ordinated inter-agency plans at all to protect the public.   Still, things like nuclear accidents can't happen in the U.K., as history has proved.   So we can rest assured that, in the event of a major disaster at the likes of Sellafield, one tremendous mess will ensure and none of the emergency services will interact with the others.   We can then expect the usual stupid comments that "lessons have been learned", when they haven't. Great news then that the government cuts for the security services will see a drastic reduction in the number of MOD police employed at nuclear sites.   According to the Guardian, there is to be a cut of up to 1,500 staff, causing drastic reductions in available manpower at MOD establishments and nuclear sites, as well as docks handling nuclear submarines.   Again, we can be reassured by the total lack of accidents, and the reassurance from the head of the nuclear inspectorate that all is well with the U.K.'s nuclear industry.   One has to agree that we don't get too many earthquakes on the Japanese scale, but an earthquake is not a pre-requisite for a nuclear incident.   Stupidity and human error are difficult things to cater for. Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/16/ministry-of-defence-police-job-cuts
We recount the failings that led to Fukushima's woes elsewhere.   However, a recent publication explains:      [The interim report into the Fukushima meltdowns] reveals at times an almost cartoon-like level of incompetence.      Crucial data estimating the dispersion of radioactive matter were not given to the prime minister’s office, so that evacuees like those from Namie were not given any advice on where to go. That is why they drove straight into the radioactive      cloud.      No one seems ever to have tried to “think the unthinkable”.      48 out of 54 nuclear reactors across Japan remain out of service, almost all because of safety fears.      Until somebody in power seizes on the report as a call to action, its findings, especially those that reveal sheer ineptitude, suggest that the public has every reason to remain as scared as hell. Source:  http://www.economist.com/node/21542437
19/1/12 The Waste Dump Consultation The esoterically named group the West Cumbria: Managing Radioactive Waste Safely or, more catchily, WCMRWS, has organised a series of meetings around the county to inform the public of the likely effects of the underground nuclear dump that they have been promoting for the last few years.   Yesterday, on BBC television's North West programme one of the leading lights of the campaign appeared to express his view of the process.   Sadly, the BBC didn't have time to mention the background of the interviewee, and his thirty years at Sellafield.   Nor did they find time for a full coverage of the history of nuclear waste, the radioactive pollution, the deaths and deformities which have occurred over the years and which led to an expert advising sexually active male employees of Sellafield to avoid having children.   No mention either of the corruption that was found by the Redfern Enquiry, or the quality of the evidence submitted to a previous enquiry into suitability of the area for dumping toxic waste.   Instead the view was painted of a small industrial estate which would blend in quite happily.   The 9.5 sq. mile hole, deep underground would lead to nothing more than a bit of soil having to be disposed of.   We're not quite sure why even the BBC fell for the suggestion that soil extends to the depth of the proposed excavation!   We have been assured by an eminent professor, an expert in geology in Cumbria, that many millions of tonnes of rock will have to be disposed of.   Listening to the WCMRWS spokesman, it was strange to think that all this could be achieved without pain, discomfort, or even the slightest disturbance to residents and visitors.   When the development was likened to the channel tunnel we expected at least a smile - if not a guffaw - from interviewer Dave Guest.   Nope, nothing.   Happily, the residents of the English Channel were not available to confirm that they had not been in the slightest inconvenienced.   Given the volume of rock to be removed there will have to be (assuming that the spoil isn't to rival Scafell) huge numbers of large lorries transporting the materials along the A595 - a road which is often closed following accidents, and is not altogether the best environment for 40 tonne wagons.   Still, we are expected to believe, these extra trips will make no difference to commuters and other road users. It remains our belief that the expansion of the nuclear industry will bring more pain and suffering to the area.   While we are altogether in agreement with the solution proposed by Mr. Forwood - leaving new waste in situ around the country at the places where it is produced - for a variety of reasons, we see the underground dump as an extension of the Thorp idea.   Can it be possible to continue that nonsensical process without having a final resting place for the product?   It seems unlikely.   However, if both processes go ahead it is only a matter of time before waste from all over the world heads the way of west Cumbria.   After all, no other country has solved the problem of disposing of highly radioactive material. Another point being overlooked, we believe, is that Cumbria does not belong only to the residents.   As with the rest of the world, it should be open to all.   Should the decision to permanently spoil this part of the world be made purely by some small section of the country?   It may well help the WCMRWS group and the pro-nuclear supporters to limit the extent of "consultation" but it that adequate.   After all, there are many holiday-makers who might like to express an opinion, but will not form part of the information/discussion process.   If a researcher were to stand in Sellafield canteen and seek opinions, would that research be enough?   We think not. The article mentioned, too, the voluntary nature of the dump.   Yet, when so many of those in charge of the decision-making process are ex-Sellafield employees, are beholden to the company in some way, or a plainly pro-nuclear, what chance is there that commonsense will prevail and the findings of the thorough Nirex Enquiry upheld?   How much more money will Sellafield and the government spend before deciding that Cumbria cannot withdraw because the losses will be too great and the loss of face too embarrassing?
18/1/12 The Biter Bitten Areva, under the command of Anne Lauvergeon, managed to purchase three uranium mines in Africa when uranium prices were at their zenith.   Because such institutions as Areva are driven by corporate greed (and personal greed, on occasion) the take-overs were rushed through before proper investigations had been completed.   Sadly for Areva, the Trekkopje site, which they purchased from the Canadian mining company UraMin, is not now expected to contain the amount of uranium which they expected - estimating that only about half the amount could be mined.   Such was the rush that (concludes a report by Marc Eichinger, a consultant appointed to look into the Trekkopje deal) the deal had been completed before any production had commenced and the quantity of uranium available discerned.   The situation has not helped Areva's financial position.   Eichinger's report was commissioned by Areva's Asset Management Division without the knowledge of Lauvergeon, even though she was chief executive at the time. Write-downs and charges of US$2.5 billion have caused three separate investigations to be instituted:  by the company itself, by the French energy ministry, and by the French government.   As yet there is no judicial investigation. Lauvergeon was abruptly replaced as head of Areva last June.   It seems, from some sources, that there was a disagreement between Sarkozy and Lauvergeon over policy, which did not help her position.   The situation was not helped when she turned down Sarkozy's invitation to become Economy Minister, back in 2007. Last month, the former chief executive took legal action over a confidential intelligence report into whether she or her husband had illegally benefited from the African transactions. She complained that she had been "slandered, spied on, in an unfair way".   Quite how this might differ from the slandering, spying on, and hacking of environmental groups carried out at the behest of the company's sister, Électricité de France, is not explained by her.   Elsewhere we note that Électricité de France executives were jailed for two years and the company fined for those practices.   It seems that perhaps the situation is unjustifiable when the tables are turned. Lauvergeon was in charge during the cost over-runs at several Areva sites, for example, in Finland.   The loss of a huge deal in Abu Dhabi and a public argument with the head of Électricité de France - a mate of Sarkozy - cannot have helped her position. In a report for the French parliament, Marc Goua, said that the deal had, indeed, been rushed, but there was no evidence of corruption.   However, Goua said that the multi-billion dollar deals with China for Areva to build reactors in that country, depended on Areva securing uranium supplies.   Thus, in order to secure the China reactor deals, the process of purchasing uranium supplies had been rushed. Nice to see the ethics are at least consistent.   Money does indeed seem to be the root of all evil.   Being ultra-greedy doesn't help.
19/11/11 Good News and Bad News Whilst the Japanese government has announced that the rice grown in Fukushima province is too highly radioactive for consumption and has banned sales thereof, our own politicians have suggested that after a mere 25 years, the sheep from the Cumbrian and Welsh fells can once again be supplied for human consumption and restrictions will be lifted soon.   9,800 farms and 4,000,000 sheep were affected by the controls which were imposed back in 1986.   We note elsewhere that the maps of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl depict suspiciously high amounts near to where the UK nuclear plants have already had  an influence:  near to Trawsfynnyd and the Cumbrian fells adjacent to Sellafield.   Isn't it strange that there is no mention of the prior fallout which must have occurred in these areas but which owed nothing to Chernobyl?   However, this did ensure that the cost of the exercise (compensation to farmers, monitoring movement of animals, etc.) did not fall on the nuclear industry. Source:  http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillance/radiosurv/chernobyl/
7/11/11 Alternative Views From Independent Sources A u-tube presentation entitled "Falling Out With Nuclear", with interviews from a variety of engineers, local representatives, anti-nuclear spokespersons, and others.   Dispels the myths around the feasibility of nuclear reprocessing, its carbon footprint (i.e. it is neither clean nor green, no matter what the pro-nuclear lobbyists and politicians would have us believe!), and comparisons with more environmentally friendly methods of energy generation that do not pollute the environment or expose the population to great risk for no real reason.   Running time is about 38 minutes.   Produced by Cozmic Films. Source:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks8w9ca6SO0&feature=share&mid=5055280 Radiation Exposure of The Population of Japan After the Earthquake The hypothesis that dust contaminated with fallout from the Fukushima accidents is a source of human exposure to radiation was tested and led to the conclusion that, although the presence of radioactivity in the air is now diminishing, there are still many sources which have high levels of radioactive material present.   This material can become airborne again, with the potential for ingestion or inhalation - the usual routes via which people are affected by radioactive material. The report goes on to say that the 12 mile Japanese evacuation zone appears inadequate to protect the public health, and asks if it is time to re-examine the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 mile planning zone for airborne accidental nuclear releases? Source:  http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/APHAkaltofen.pdf
31/10/11 Fukushima Fallout May Be Thirty Times Worse Than The Original Estimate Two reports suggest that the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi plant could be thirty times worse than acknowledged by Tepco and the Japanese government.   One of the reports suggests that the amount of caesium, whose half-life is around 30 years, that has leaked into the Pacific Ocean was the greatest single release of artificial radionuclides into the sea ever. It is forecast that the levels will reach around twice the levels which occurred during the atomic weapons testing in the Pacific back in the 1960s.   Most people link those 1960s levels with increased adverse health effects in the region, especially affecting children.   Although the forecast was that the material would soon dissipate into to ocean, where its effect would be smaller, it appears that there is a gyre (miniature whirlpool) which is bringing the material back to shore on a cyclical basis, meaning that the molluscs and shellfish which are most susceptible to the pollution, are getting higher than anticipated doses. A second report, from the Norwegian Institute for Air Reseach, concludes that the Fukushima events commenced immediately after the earthquake and thus the releases of caesium started earlier and have gone on for longer than other studies have assumed.   They suggest that the Fukushima disaster is the most significant event after Chernobyl, but point out that very little of the Chernobyl fallout, compared to Fukushima, went into an ocean.   With Fukushima it is estimated that 80% of the caesium released went into the Pacific Ocean, with only 19% falling on land. The institute suggest that the reason for the large discrepancy between Japan's figures and their own is due to the fact that the Japanese monitoring equipment could not detect the material that was blown out to sea.   They also point out that some of the monitoring stations became too contanimated to be reliable sources of data.
31/10/11 Alternative Views of Nuclear We are in no position to offer an opinion on the following article which appears on the Press TV website and which we came across as part of our information-gathering trawls.  Press TV, an Iranian media company, is widely despised as being supportive of fundamentalist propaganda messges.   We offer it merely as part of an independent view: Secret Ministry of Defense (MoD) documents have revealed that the government has approved a £747 million funding for Project Pegasus to build a new enriched uranium facility at its Atomic Weapons establishment (AWE), which is responsible for the design, manufacture and support of UK's nuclear weapons. This is while, the MoD earlier allocated another £500 million for Project Mensa at AWE Burghfield to improve its warhead assembly facilities. The British government has spent £2.6 billion since 2008 to renovate the nukes production infrastructure at AWE in a clear defiance of the NPT. Britain and its western allies that accuse Iran of leading a military nuclear program have never presented proofs for their claims as their own commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation has been always under question. During his address at the Tory conference, [Dr. Liam] Fox [ex-defence minister] even went as far as imagining a nuclear-armed Iran saying it would trigger “a new arms race in the world's most dangerous regions” by which he apparently meant the Middle East. He did not, however, refer to the Israeli regime's 200 nuclear warheads or the threat they pose to the region, as it is western practice. Source:  http://www.presstv.ir/detail/203070.html Would such a programme assist in the disposal of the nuclear waste that we have to get rid off somehow?   Sadly, we genuinely do not know.
27/10/11 Nice People to Do Business With? The world's largest supplier of uranium for processing into fuel rods for nuclear power generation is Rio Tinto.   Their mines in Australia are responsible for a large amount of the CO2 emissions of that country, and they have recently announced that they are hoping to step up production.   Back in the 1980s, they were mining copper in Papua New Guinea.   As is the nature of any body that holds the vast majority of the controlling finances, the company effectively owned the whole country.   Their money was used to finance the quashing of those who disagreed with their policies or objected to their way of doing business.   Large numbers of Papua New Guineans died as a result.   The Times, 27/10/11, informs us that the American courts are to proceed with a war crimes investigation of the company. People like Chris Huhne and the other pro-nulcear lobbyists must be aware of this situation and the nature of the company, yet they still persist in the fallacy that nuclear is low carbon, and that putting out trust in a company like Rio Tinto will lead to energy security.   More likely, once a monopoly has been established and the UK is almost totally dependent on nuclear, we will feel pressure being applied.   With their vast income, Rio Tinto and the other participants in nuclear can buy an awful lot of influence and publish an awful lot of propaganda - something that is self-evident in the way that news from Fukushima has been suppressed and the current rash of BBC programmes supporting the safety of nuclear proves.   As someone once said, "Get them by their sensitive bits and their minds will follow."   Would you buy a used car from them, let alone hand them control of your lifeblood? Whether it is ethically correct to say, as Ed Miliband did, that matters outside our country are of no concern to us, is surely debatable?   Can it be morally acceptable to reduce our fictitious CO2 emission merely by shifting it to somewhere else?   Surely the idea is for the world emissions to be reduced - not just shift the blame to somewhere else?   The reduction in quality of mined ore will certainly increase the CO2 emissions, but, happily, lots of aspects of the nuclear process omit their figures in this regard.   A very interesting document assessing the impact of uranium mining and processing concludes as follows: Sustainability of Uranium Mining and Milling: Toward Quantifying Resources and Eco-Efficiency.   Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf   (December 2007.) In summary, the extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology, and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and broader social issues. These crucial environmental aspects of resource extraction are only just beginning to be understood in the context of more complete life cycle analyses of the nuclear chain and other energy options. There still remains incomplete reporting however, especially in terms of data consistency among mines and site-specific data for numerous individual mines and mills, as well as the underlying factors controlling differences and variability. It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of energy and water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term. These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium mining and milling. Source:  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es702249v Australia's  CO2 emissions are rising at twice the rate of the world average - and has risen by 14% as opposed to a fall of 2% in most other developed countries.   56% of their emissions are the result of "energy generation processes", which seems to include everything from nuclear to coal  and the delightfully-named "autogenerators".   (Those companies who generate their own needs and are self-sufficient.) Development of uranium mines is expected to take place in the Northern Territories, where there is insufficient power and water for the processes.   Consequently, the mining company will have to build a massive desalination plant (with resultant increase in carbon footprint - but it is alright as it is not in the U.K.) and electricity generating plant.   Surprisingly, Australia does not have commercial nuclear power stations.   Wonder why not?
19/10/11 Firmware* Threat to Nuclear Processors Remember the Stuxnet virus which was found in industrial control gear firmware manufactured by Siemens?   The virus was allegedly introduced into the manufacturing process via a simple USB memory stick.   That virus was aimed specifically at disprupting Iran's nuclear programme, as it was configured to damage motors used in uranium-enrichment centrifuges, causing them to spin out of control.   Not, of course, that there was ever any danger to civilians (!), even though Iran did actually admit that the virus had worked and the centrifuges had been sabotaged.   The complexity and style of the Stuxnet virus caused fingers to point at governmental involvement, with the United States, China, and others having a hand in it. Things have now moved on, and the latest version, called Duqu, has now manifested itself.   We are not told what the purpose of the variant is, but it is believed to have been created either by those who manufactured Stuxnet, or people who have somehow acquired the source code for Stuxnet. Interestingly, despite our concerns about the safety of control equipment in nuclear establishments, we have to note that there is nothing even in the latest report from Dr. Weightman relating to the vulnerability of nuclear processes to outside interference of this nature.   He is, of course, qhite happy to emphasise the safety of everything nuclear (except perhaps the legacy gunge in ponds at Sellafield) and its robustness to withstand events like tsunami and earthquakes - not of course that there is any idea of how they would cope if such admittedly unlikely events were to take place.   What we have not seen is any sort of assessment - office-bound or in the field - of what might happen should Stuxnet or similar software find its way into a U.K. nuclear plant. Enrichment takes place at Capenhurst, on the Wirral, a mere 15 miles from centres like Liverpool, Birkenhead, Chester, and about 30 miles from Manchester.   Scary stuff.   Happily, for unannounced reasons, Siemens (Corruption is a Way of Life) have pulled out of manufacturing components for the nuclear industry.   However, we have to wonder at the preparedness of other companies who remain in the manufacturing chain. France is allegedly up in arms over the death of a disabled French lady who was recently captured in Kenya and taken to Somalia.   Whilst in no way diminishing the gross nature of the crime, it is nevertheless a pity that they were not so concerned over the death of a photographer who was on board the Rainbow Warrior when the French chose to blow it up because it was being a bit of a nuisance to their exploits testing nuclear warheads on Moruroa back in 1985. *  Firmware is the built-in software embedded in processor circuitry.   Although it can be overwritten, it is not volatile (i.e. it is not deleted by the removal of power) and is not really intended to be accessed by anyone other than for essential programme development and up-dating of the programme as design flaws come to light and better ways of dealing with operations come to light.   That, in this case, the ability to change software values via a standard USB port was left in situ is extremely surprising and suspicious.
16/10/11 Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, managed to spout about the virtues of nuclear energy at the Tory Party conference.   Apparently he has been trawling round Middle Eastern countries (the only ones with a bit of pocket money left) and, as a result - no doubt of his marketing abilities - they are queuing up to spend their idle cash by investing in the U.K.'s nuclear industry.   Mr. Hendry, with all the panache and trustworthyness of a used-car salesman, tells us that it will be more difficult to find the capacity to build than to find the money.   In some respects that could be good news - at least Hendry, Huhne, et al, won't need to spend their time working out how to subsidise the projects without actually giving a subsidy.   The obverse of the coin is that experts such as Citigroup have already done the maths and demonstrated to the satisfaction of anyone with an open mind (which doesn't include our politicians) that "nuclear power development is uninvestable for public equity markets".   (In other words, it is too risky for a healthy, quick return, so put your money elesewhere.) So far, the only company able to take on those risks is EDF - effectively the French government.   Given the massive profits being extracted following their acquisition in 2008 of British Energy, that is hardly surprising.   Yet even they continue to avoid giving timetables and making decisions.   According to Private Eye's "Old Sparky", in issue 1299, investment is easier for the Middle Eastern potentates to talk about politely - it avoids embarrassment;  parting them from their money rather more troublesome. Elsewhere, the amazingly active Stop Hinkley campaign, with lots of influential members on board, is endeav
13/10/11 Article on Pacific Rim Cities Accelerated Baby Death Figures Hospitals on the Pacific rim have experienced something of major significance in terms of the region's infant mortality rate. In spite of the fact that major media has sought to downplay the danger, the conclusion that Fukushima related radiation is the culprit is difficult to resist.  The Center For Disease Control (CDC) produces a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), and the just-published edition show a baby death rate increase of 35% in eight north-western cities suspected of receiving increased radiation floating over from Japan's critically damaged nuclear plants.   The cities affected are as follows:        Boise, ID     Seattle, WA     Portland, OR     Santa Cruz, CA     Sacramento, CA     San Francisco, CA     San Jose, CA     Berkeley, CA   Any adjacent cities (such as GEO/Christian Media's home base in Southern Oregon along the Western I-5 corridor) are almost certainly also affected, but the report focused on larger population centers. The MMWR statement showed 37 dead babies in the 4 weeks ending March 19th, plus 125 deaths in the 10 week period ending May 28th of this year. The period covers the month before and the 2 1/2 months after the Fukushima disaster, and the numbers are very significant.   To put it into perspective, while infant death spiked 35% in the affected areas, the rest of the USA saw a 2.3% increase. In short, something in the Northwest is killing infants at a sharply higher rate in that same period. Dr Janette Sherman, a physician examining the data notes the statistic correlate with patterns seen in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife death in affected areas. At the children's cancer hospital in Minsk, Belarus, and at the Vilne hospital for radiological protection in the east of Ukraine, specialist doctors are in no doubt they are seeing highly unusual rates of cancers, mutations and blood diseases linked to the Chernobyl nuclear accident 24 years ago. But proving that infant mortality hundreds of miles from the stricken nuclear plant has increased 20-30% in 20 years, or that the many young people suffering from genetic disorders, internal organ deformities and thyroid cancers are the victims of the world's greatest release of radioactivity, is impossible. Source:  http://coupmedia.org/toxins/infant-death-rise-due-to-fukushima-2006 Still, that does not prevent the BBC airing the views of two scientists who can happily ignore the alternative (i.e. from an unauthorised source) evidence.   Happily ignoring the much larger numbers of serious chronic illnesses that have manifested themselves since Chernobyl, Professor Jim Al-Khalili in a conveniently scheduled programme gave what was ostensibly an independent overview of the nuclear situation post-Fukushima.   After visiting Japan, where everything was alright and the major problems were not associated with nuclear radiation but the psychological effects of the trauma, he moved on to Chernobyl.   Here he spoke to a Russian medical consultant who demonstrated that the after-effects of the accident were, actually, minimal.   Given the available evidence elsewhere, we have to wonder why this alternative material was not considered in a programme claiming to be independent, yet strangely adhering to the nuclear industry's own propaganda. A couple of weeks later, the BBC's "Bang Goes The Theory" television programme, screened at 1930 hrs., also debunked the myth of potential radiation damage to the environment and the population.   A doctor appearing on that show actually said that she thought there would be no damage emerging from Fukushima.   Strangely contrasting that, on the BBC's news pages, is an article about nearly 8% of children under the age of 16 living in the Fukushima area having thryoid problems.   Whilst the Japanese authorities will not be making the findings of the investigation public, affected children will receive treatment.   Well, if it isn't made public it cannot be proved to exist, we suppose.   Our objections to the bias shown in both programmes have been studiously ignored.   We probably have been labelled "Greenies", which, for some reason, renders our opinions invalid.   Besides if the government supply your income and your pension pot is at stake, it pays to humour them. The UN's World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute
24/9/11 Not Only In Cumbria The 1,233 radioactive particles retrieved from the shores of the Irish Sea near Sellafield have a parallel in the Scottish Douneray site.   Many radioactive particles were discovered and eventually removed, but, as with Sellafield, a significant amount of pollution has merely been washed out to sea - either as a result of a deliberate policy to reduce stored contamination or as the result of an accident.   Once it has found its way into the oceans, it can be very difficult or impossible to locate and retrieve.   Hence the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has recently admitted that very many particles will never be recovered, ensuring that the pollution will remain virtually for ever.   As the article says in a quote from Friends of the Earth: "Once again, we see the nuclear industry causing a problem it can't solve, and dumping the cost and consequence on the rest of us," said the environmental group's chief executive, Stan Blackley. "Nuclear power is neither safe, clean, cheap nor low-carbon and it continues to cause problems and cost the taxpayer a hidden and open-ended fortune. Let's learn from our past mistakes and consign it to a lead-lined dustbin." As can be discerned from the rest of this website, this is our view exactly.   Once the genie of nuclear pollution is out of the bottle, it cannot be returned to it. Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up
4/8/11 Sellafield MOX Plant to Close The inevitable closure of the MOX plant at Sellafield was announced yesterday.   The number of job losses proposed ranges between 300 and 800, according to the source, with the company saying it would re-deploy as many as possible elsewhere on the sites.   The cost of the plant thus far is reckoned to be in the region of £1.4 billion, during which time it should have handled over 120 tonnes of fuel a year, but in fact only managed to do 13 tonnes in 8 years.   It was described as being "the biggest scientific white elephant of all time".   Presumably there will be equally horrendous cleaning up costs to included in the final reckoning. MOX (Mixed OXide) was developed to utilise the surplus atomic weapons materials that were to be disposed of following the end of the cold war between America and Russia.   Both sides having agreed to dispose of the decommissioned warheads.   About one third of the American material (17 tonnes) was to be placed in landfill after treatment to "immobilise" it, whilst a further 34 tonnes was to be used for the MOX process.   The latter process involves mixing the surplus plutonium with uranium, enriching the latter, and then using it as a fuel in commercial reactors.   Except, there weren't really enough reactors to use the amount of fuel proposed to be produced, but on which, we assume the viability figures would have been founded.   In the U.K., the plutonium is derived from civilian sources.  We can find no mention of any military stockpile, but the amount is reported at 109 tonnes, with a further 28 tonnes from foreign sources.   Only one contract was taken up for the use of the MOX fuel: by a Japanese generator, Chubu Electric at their Hamaoka plant, which was constructed over two geological fault lines.   Following the Fukushima catastrophy, President Kan has been averse to re-opening the Hamaoka plant, which is currently shut-down to facilitate structural strengthening.   It now seems unlikely that the Hamaoka reactors will ever re-open. The Japanese plant was intending to take 50% of Sellafield's MOX output, so the closure of Hamaoka would mean that even if the actual production difficulties at Sellafield were ever to be resolved and it managed to  reach its target output, there would still be no chance of the plant becoming economically viable. Of course, a problem now arises as to what to do with the plutonium which was to be converted into MOX fuel.   Japan has no use for it and the only plans for nuclear waste disposal in that country were to bury it - which may not be too sensible given the number of geological problems it suffers.   Transporting such dangerous material half-way round the world, risking terrorist and pirate attacks doesn't seem too sensible either, but the proposed new design of reactors will not use either plutonium or MOX fuels. Supported by people like Lord Marland, a junior minister, l(who admits that the Sellafiled MOX plant is unift for purpose - to use the popular euphemism), local M.P. Jamie Reed's solution to the failing plant was to build a bigger and better one at Sellafield, but nuclear industry experts are reported to view such a move with "extreme scepticism".   The problems with the contracts has meant that in the last few months a great deal of the work was subcontracted to France.   Given the potential market for any new plant's output, the billions it would cost seem highly unlikely to be found by the cash-strapped government.   Should it be stored at Sellafield? 5/7/11 Balancing the Field? According to the Times Business Section, 4/7/11, oil companies are being required to pay increasing amounts towards decommissioning costs.   The ConocoPhillips platform in the North Sea was put up for sale in January as it nears the end of its productive life.   The company's stake of 23.4% is said to be worth aroung £60 million.   Originally, the government promised to allow the cost of decommissioning to be offset against tax, but this is now seemingly unlikely to happen. According to the Times article, a PriceWaterhouseCoopers spokesman stated that, "Companies are increasingly nervous that the government won't stand behind its decommissioning liabilities." As well as being yet another example of the methods used to tilt the playing field in favour of nuclear, it also raises the issue of whether the decommissioning liabilities for nuclear have been fully considered and the proposed cap on liabilities for the companies choosing to go that route is properly representative of what the costs will be in 160 years' times.
13/6/11 Out of the U.K. Spotlight, but Troubles Continue for Japan
Dangerous radioactive strontium has been detected in seawater near the Fukushima-1 plant, at 240 times over the safe limit. Some 100,000 tons of contaminated water stored in the plant threatens to put out its drainage system in days. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which operates the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant, has declared that strontinum-90 was detected near the water intakes outside reactors 2 and 3. The levels there were shown to be 170 and 240 times higher than the limit, correspondingly. The same strontium was found in groundwater near the reactors' buildings. Strontinum-90 was also detected in samples taken from inside an inlet near the facility. The level of strontium contamination there was 53 times higher than the safety standard. The inlet has been used exclusively by the plant.  All the water samples were taken back in mid-May. According to TEPCO, it takes up to three weeks to run full tests.  With a comparatively long half-life of 29 years, radioactive strontium can accumulate in the bones if inhaled, and poses a risk of cancer.  The rainy season is approaching and concerns have surged that the contaminated water in the Fukushima plant that has been accumulating may overflow. The drainage system is expected to overpass its capacity by June 20.  Still, TEPCO had to postpone the test-run of a new system to process highly radioactive water. The operator wants to conduct a test-run on Tuesday or later, which is more than four days behind schedule, Japanese news agency NHK reports. The test had to be delayed as water seepage from a pipe joint was discovered along with the failure of a pump to siphon water.   This delays the working launch of the system until June 17-18.  Over 100,000 tons of highly radioactive water is now stored in the plant. Some 500 tons of water add up every day due to the cooling systems of several reactors that leak. The water has also been coming due to the rains pouring in Fukushima-1 area. If the water overflows it may go straight into the Pacific Ocean.   Fukushima city may be included in evacuation zone. Reporting from Fukushima city, which is 80km away from the Fukushima-1 nuclear plant, RT’s Sean Thomas says radiation levels are very high in the city as the contaminated particles are carried there by wind and rain. At some places the readings are 1,000 times over the dose safe for health. Moreover, readings may differ dramatically at objects standing just a meter away from each other: a house giving 30 times over the dose, while a building next to it surging to 500 times over the safety limit. Grass is one of the concerns of the local residents as it attracts and absorbs radiation. The maximum acceptable dose for the public from any manmade facility is 1,000 microsieverts per year as set by the IAEA. The lowest annual dose that can cause cancer is 12 microsieverts per hour. Scientists are working to try to clean up the radiation.  Authorities are looking into whether Fukushima city should be included in the evacuation area or whether people in at least some hotspots in the city should be evacuated. James Corbett, editor of the Corbett Report, says the effects of the people’s exposure to radiation, including the increase in cancer rates, are yet to show up.  “As we know from the BEIR VII report put up by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2005, there is no such thing as a safe level of radiation exposure, that any level of radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer,” Corbett says. “And however negligible that risk may be with any particular person on any particular day and any particular spot, when it’s averaged out over the large population like is living in the Fukushima region that unfortunately means there will be over time increasing cancer rates there. “It really is just a question of how many and at this point we obviously can’t say because now we don’t even know the extent of the scope of the radiation danger, but as that report reveals, it’s obviously much higher than it has been previously supposed,” he added.  Source:  http://rt.com/news/radioactive-strontium-plant-water/
Excessive levels of strontium detected in seawater Radioactive strontium that exceeds the government-set safety level was detected for the first time in sea water in the inlet next to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, reported that strontinum-90, at a level 53 times higher than the safety standard was detected in samples taken from inside an inlet used exclusively by the nuclear plant, on May 16. TEPCO also said that strontinum-90 was detected at a level 170 times higher than the standard in samples also taken on May 16, near the water intakes outside reactor number 2. At the reactor number 3 water intakes, the level was 240 times higher than the legal safety limit. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says the result is not beyond their expectations because the substance was detected in an inlet used exclusively by the power plant. They say they will closely monitor the fish and shellfish in the affected area. TEPCO announced that strontium-90 was also detected for the first time in ground water near the reactors' buildings. A ground water sample taken on May 18, around reactor number 2, measured 6,300 becquerels per liter. And for reactor number one, the sample showed 22 becquerels. TEPCO explained it usually takes about 3 weeks to analyze the samples. With a comparatively long half-life of 29 years, radioactive strontium can accumulate in the bones if inhaled, and poses a risk of cancer. Source:  http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_02.html
19/5/11 Green and Peaceful Land - or How to Avoid the Freedom of Information Act Greenpeace have been chasing documents from the various nuclear councils;  Copeland, Allerdale, and Cumbria.   Needless to say, some of the information they sought was the result of "informal unminuted meetings" and thus exempted from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.   No doubt most of the material will have been forgotten, too.   Another useful get-out-of-jail-free card. Quite why there should be surprise about the content of the documents unearthed by Greenpeace, we do not know.   The behind-the-scenes machinations by the local politicians should surely have been expected?   The fact that Cumbria will merely be generating electricity for others, freeing the customers from worry about nuclear disasters, was a point we raised over two years ago at a DECC meeting in Manchester, where we observed that the criteria issued by DECC suggested that each area needed to be sulf-sufficient in generating capacity.   We asked how the proposed (at that time) development of up to nine reactors on the Cumbrian coast could be squared with that    It was obvious, we suggested, that the energy produced would be exported to the rest of the country, especially the industrial heartlands and the south.   We also pointed out that the distribution problems alone were incredibly expensive and fraught with dangers - to the environment and marine ecology.  Our observation antagonised a nuclear industry representative who kept glowering at us and asking how much influence "these beach people" should be permitted.   It is not possible on paper to give an idea of the scathing deprecation with which the question was posed. Other aspects of the discovered documentation, too, were just as we would expect.   The method of distributing the generated power has been a moot point since we first started.   We pointed out that the Irish Sea sediments might be a bit too risky to disturb for the undersea cabling to connect to either Heysham or the Wirral where there are potential connection points to the national grid.   We have known since 1997 that the geology of the Sellafield area is too dodgy for the underground 25 sq. km. dump. The conflict of interest in the NDA pushing for re-use of land it owns, by offering it for sale at a favourable rate has also been known for years.   The fact seems to be that most of the land available at Sellafield would require too much effort to convert into a generating station on the scale envisaged.   Small wonder it is the industry's least-favoured site, even if they could hitch it to a barge and tow it and its amenable/gullible (according to viewpoint) inhabitants to a more convenient place to have a generating platform. There is a certain irony in the documents, which says that Cumbria is the right place for development, but it is in the wrong place.   After half a century of propaganda from the industry, it would seem the population around Sellafield now cannot see what the rest of the country can see. MP Jamie Reed has devoted his life, it seems to us, to the furtherance of the nuclear industry, and the poison (as we see it) is now spreading wider and wider, infecting almost every aspect of West Cumbrian life.   Mr. Reed's favourite saying, when challenged about his unfailing support for the nuclear industry is that, "There is no Plan B".   We believe that even his own political party can see the dangers inherent in the situation where a single industry is so influential because of its monopoly position.   As an MP, surely Mr. Reed should be actively seeking a Plan B to lessen the area's dependency on just one industry? The rôle of the West Lakes Renaissance group in promoting nuclear is, to us, highly suspicious.   They seem to have gone from a budget of a few thousand pounds to several million in just a short space of time.   Almost every pro-nuclear strategist in the area has some kind of input to it:  funny how the same names keep occuring over and over again, all spouting the same thing as if from some sort of catechism.   Where would they get it from, and why? The Greenpeace press release says: 'The Councils, and others who initiated these meetings, seem to view West Cumbria and the Lake District as their private fiefdom to be offered up for nuclear waste dumping. Their blind pursuit of nuclear jobs will cost jobs and income in the tourism, food and drink and agricultural sectors dearly. 'These minutes expose the cynical machinations behind the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely stakeholder engagement programme. Claims about openly discussing nuclear waste disposal with the people of Cumbria are nothing more than a sham based on a hidden agenda. The discussions on disposal should now be halted. The Councils should not be allowed to take any further steps on this matter until there is full disclosure and examination of all the documents concerning new build and wastes from all parties involved. 'The documents also reveal the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was heavily involved in the closed door meetings, yet it is not meant to actively promote nuclear power. The NDA will be the developer and operator of a national nuclear dump, but it role in these behind scenes meetings raises questions about conflict of interest.' Source:  http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/document/building-case-nuclear-new-build-sellafield and http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/document/amec-stages-3-and-4-energy-coast-deal
16/5/11 How Clean is Clean? Perhaps amusingly, the Keep Britain Tidy group last week announced the beaches worthy of the EU Blue Flag award.   They include Seascale and St. Bees.   Other Cumbrian coast beaches are not so lucky, and the politicians all say that efforts will have to be made to limit the amount of unprocessed effluent being pumped into the sea.   We have to wonder whether the Keep Britain Tidy group are qualified to assess the radioactive pollution present on most of the Cumbrian beaches and thus, probably, the sea, especially the areas close to Sellafield, such as St. Bees and Seascale.   What about those like Braystones?   Perhaps that is not deemed to be a bathing beach, which leads one to wonder where all the caravan- and bungalow-dwellers go for a swim. What about the recent announcement, too, by the Environment Agency, that they will be switching to examining the sea bed for radioactive materials . . .. ?
"By our actions we can either compound disasters or diminish them."   Ban Ki-moon, 10/5/11 11/5/11 More from the "You Can Trust Us" department. When built in late 1966, a component manufacturing defect at the Brown's Ferry, Alabama, plant meant that a valve in one of the reactor 's safety systems would not operate correctly, thus negating its benefit.   Under certain scenarios, this could have lead to core damage had an accident involving a series of unlikely events occurred.   Well, isn't this unlikely scenario just what happened at Three Mile Island?   Even more worrying is that the defective component was not noticed despite many checks over the decades it was installed.   The failed valve was only discovered following re-fueling operations last October.   Naturally, despite protestations that they have a safe plant, Brown's Ferry nuclear plant managers have been "cited", and will have to endure supervision for some time until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are satisfied with its operations. There have been a few incidents involving the Brown's Ferry plant, including a fire in 1975.   The whole site was closed down (scrammed) in April, 2011, when a tornado caused loss of external power.   The reactors closed down automatically as planned, with generators providing emergency power. Source:  http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/05/10/nuclear.browns.ferry/
9/5/11 Making An Honourable Exit It is nice to see that some nations still have honourable officials:  Japan's Foshis Kosako, nuclear advisor to the prime minister Naoto Kan, resigned.  In his resignation speech he accused the Japanese leadership of ignoring his advice on how to handle the nuclear crisis, particularly the setting of radiation limits for schools. Kosako even alleged that the government had not fully complied with the law in its response to the nuclear disaster. “There is no point for me to be here,” he concluded.   Source:  http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/04/30/how-to-make-a-dramatic-exit-japans-nuke-advisor-quits/ Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/04/30/how-to-make-a-dramatic-exit-japans-nuke-advisor-quits/#ixzz1Lrw3AhZ8 Meanwhile, another article exposes the anti-nuclear feelings of the average Japanese citizen:  http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/09/3612355/japan-islanders-oppose-proposed.html According to a report in the New York Times, of the 9/5/11, Masayoshi Son, the founder of Softbank and Japan’s richest man, said last month that he would donate about $12 million to start a research foundation for renewable energy.  Continued reliance on atomic energy, he told a news conference, “would be a sin against our children, grandchildren and future generations.”
Sadly, in the U.K., it seems, politicians will do anything to oblige the nuclear lobby and have no respect for either their progeny or the environment.
18/4/11 Surry With a Tinge On Top According to the Washington Post (18/4/11) and a brief bulletin on Sky News, a tornado caused an automatic shutdown of two reactors at the Surry Nuclear Plant in Virginia on 16/4/11.    The tornado also caused damage to an electrical substation adjacent to the plant, causing loss of external power to the plant.   Diesel generators provided emergency power to keep the plant safe.   Power has partially been restored to both plants now. Although not mentioned elsewhere, there is also the cryptic statement that "radioactive material release is below federally approved limits and pose no threats to station workers or the public", issued by the Nulcear Regulatory Commission.
18/4/11 Whitehaven News Articles Four different articles in the Whitehaven News have attracted our interest this week: i)     The Environment Agency wants more resources put into a seabed survey and less on monitoring local beaches for traces of radioactivity.   The article quotes them as saying, "In times of finite money we are happy in principle to accept a reduction in the beach monitoring programme so long as there is investment in looking at the seabed."   So it is about Sellafield cutting their expenses then.   We have noted the potential problems of seabed pollution for the last two years.   The toxic materials which we named the website after, have been around since the beginning - about 50 years ago - and the effects have been noted by every authority, including the Manx and Irish governments over that period.   So why has it taken the Environment Agency so long to getting round to dealing with their concerns?   Also according to the article, Core claims that over half a ton of plutonium has been discharged into the Irish Sea over 50 years from Sellafield.   It reports, "Its return to shore by storm and tide actions is well documented," said Mr. Forwood.   "Once dried and re-suspended in air in particle form, plutonium can be inhaled, ingested or enter the body through open cuts and wounds."   The Whitehaven News report was by Alan Irving, Whitehaven News, 14/4/11, P.6 ii)    A group from Norway, members of an organisation called "Neptune Network", travelled to Sellafield and parked a small car on a public crossing of the coastal railway used by Sellafield to transport nuclear flasks to Workington and Barrow-in-Furness.   Obviously there was no real attempt to cause damage or put anyone at risk, it was just a token gesture which was soon resolved.   However, given the number of accidents around the country involving vehicles and railway crossings . . . iii)  A legal challenge is to be mounted by Cumbria County Council, supported by Allerdale Council, as they do not believe that the current method of disposal of low-level waste reflects best practise.   The challenge is against the Environment Agency's decision to permit the waste to be buried in a conventional landfill site at the Lillyhall site. iv)  The Whtehaven News also reports the loss of cooling water to Sellafield on the same day that an emergency exercise had been scheduled.   The exercise had to be called off.   Only a few people on Sellafield's "A-list" of stakeholders were told at the time.   The water, which is piped from Wastwater, 10 miles from Sellafield, is conveyed by pipework over 50 years old.   This is the third time in less than two years that there have been interruptions to the cooling water supply. Points From An Esteemed Organ A whole plethora of articles appeared in the U.K. press over the last week, almost all of them suggesting that the dangers and costs associated with new nuclear are too great.   Even Lord Ashdown felt the need to re-state the Lib-Dems' anti-nuclear stance.   There must be an election coming up.   We wonder how many votes the Lib-Dems gained as a result of their initial long-voiced anti-nuclear opinions.   Given the rapidity of the change in Mr. Huhne's own opinion, we have to wonder what the true policy is.   Private Eye notes Mr. Huhne's propensity for U-turns over such things as the Alternative Voting system currently being mooted. Old Sparky, in Private Eye 1286, points out the con-trick in the energy bill currently being debated.   Repeating the same old mantra - that there will be no government subsidies for new nuclear, the Eye points out that the wording of the Funded Decommissioning Programme allows for a cap on private liability.   Actually, we have had this on on this site for some time now, but it is good to see them catch up.   The premise being put forward is that the government, in the shape of the Energy Minister, can forecast the cost of decommissioning nuclear sites over a 160 year period.   Clever stuff. A further explanation of the ex-Chief Scientific Officer's interest in promoting the new build nuclear programme is suggested:  Sir David King, is senior scientific adviser to the Swiss investment bank, UBS, which was brought in by the last government to "advise on a fresh round of nuclear construction" and whose clients include many of the big nuclear players. Lord Hutton of Furness appeared on the Andrew Marr Show (not the most incisive of interviews) a few weeks ago.   Unsurprisingly, the peer supported nuclear, saying, "The industry has got to address the safety concerns, but there is simply no alternative in energy policy.   To say goodbye to nuclear is crushingly naiive".   Sadly, presumably due to time constraints, he didn't find the time to mention that he stepped down as Labout MP for Barrow-in-Furness a couple of years ago, after 17 years, to work for the New Mexico company, Hyperion Power Generation.   Their website state:  Hyperion Power Generation Inc. is a privately held company formed to commercialize a small modular nuclear reactor designed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”) scientists leveraging forty years of technological advancement. The reactor, known as the Hyperion Power Module (“HPM”), designed to fill a previously unmet need for a transportable power source that is safe, clean, sustainable, and cost-efficient.    Sounds a bit like Sellafield in a wheelbarrow to us. Japanese Reporter Visits Braystones We were charmed to meet a reporter from a Japanese national newspaper last week.   Seemingly very interested in how the public coped with disasters, such as the nuclear leaks at Chernobyl, Calder Hall/Windscale/Sellafield, as well as the natural disasters around the world, we took her on a tour of the immediate area, and explained how we felt about the nuclear industry and the proposed expansion.   At Braystones we pointed out that a bucket of sand from the beach would be classed as nuclear waste if it were taken to London, and suggested that marine life and the environment had all suffered as a consequence, not just of the 1950's fire, but of the deliberate and calculated dumping of toxic material into the Irish Sea. Her visit to the area included interviews with a local independent councillor, a local fisherman, and the local MP.   Interestingly, requests by the paper's head office for her to meet Sellafield management were refused by them.
11/4/11 Independent Articles Explain The White Elephant That is The Mox Plant Two articles appeared in The Independent today explaining the reprocessing of plutonium into an asset - as perceived by our local MP and other intellectuals.   We recommend you read them and wonder at the alternatives that could be funded given the same scale of investment, or what other services could be maintained if we hadn't been saddled with the costs of nuclear mistakes. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-how-a-moneymaking-strategy-from-the-1960s-left-behind-a-toxic-legacy-2266046.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/governments-doomed-6bn-plan-to-dispose-of-nuclear-waste-2266047.html A collated Acrobat version can be found here:  Independent Articles, 11/4/11
6/4/11 The True Likely Cost of Nuclear Waste Disposal and Size of the Subsidy (which won't be available, of course) Which Will Be Required Anyone of a mathematical bent will be interested in this presentation from Jackson Consulting.   Nuclear Subsidy Presentation.   If we have understood it correctly, then by 2047, the UK tax payer will be looking at a subsidy requirement of £4.27 billion for decommissioning.   Not to be sneezed at!
30/3/11 Business Failing?   Just Make It Bigger and Waste Even More!   A Recommendation from ex-government chief scientist British taxpayers should spend up to £3bn on a new facility for reprocessing nuclear waste at Sellafield, despite the site in Cumbria already having a similar plant which has cost nearly £2bn and is labelled one of the biggest industrial failures in British history. This is the conclusion of a report by scientists which recommends a brand-new, plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) plant at Sellafield as part of Britain's nuclear "renaissance" to build a suite of nuclear power stations that could burn MOX fuel as well as conventional uranium.   [Does the generic type-approval design actually permit this?] The current Sellafield MOX plant cost £440m to build and the nuclear industry has squandered a further £1.5bn of taxpayers' money in operating costs and upgrades. Designed to produce 120 tonnes of MOX fuel a year for export, it has only managed 15 tonnes over nearly a decade of sub-standard operation, which was labelled by one former government minister as a catastrophic and comprehensive failure. Source:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/top-scientist-backs-1633bn-sellafield-plant-despite-1632bn-failure-on-same-site-2256766.html Not sure we approve of wasting £5 billion on white elephants - are other colours any cheaper?   No doubt it is so dear because of the amount of fudge that comes with it. [1mg of MOX is basically two million times more powerful than 1mg of uranium.   We have concerns about the minimisation of the importance of leaked radioactive material - concentrating on an 8-day half-life of some components, which will obviously not pose a long-term threat to health or the environment, although we do wonder what effects even such a short, sharp, exposure might have on future generations of marine- and wild-life.   However, experts have not mentioned that the half-life of plutonium-239, one of the components of MOX, is around 24,000 years. If even a small amount of this seriously nasty substance escapes from the plant, say, in a smoke plume, the particles will travel with the wind and contaminate soil for tens of thousands of years.   MOX is often discounted as non-threatening, but, in fact, the threat posed by MOX is very serious.   An NIRS report explains that inhalation of MOX radioactive material is significantly more dangerous than inhalation of normal uranium radioactive particles.]
30/3/11 Friends in High Places Quote from Private Eye 1285, 1/4/11,:  "Thanks to a policy of seconding private sector employees to Whitehall, the Department of Energy's current deputy director of nuclear strategy is also a director of Costain, one of the firms hoping to profit from Britain's plan to build a new generation of nuclear power plants."   Nice to see what DECC consider to be impartiality!   Could it be interesting when it gets to judicial review time?
30/3/11 Emergency - What Chance With a Nuclear Disaster? Recently speaking about the role of the emergency services during a shooting escapade in which 12 people died, Cumbria's Chief Constable acknowledged that the current protocols were unworkable.   There were comments, too, about the inability of the emergency services' radio - the system being over-loaded and difficult to understand.   One has to wonder just what would happen if there was an unscheduled event at the Sellafield complex.   It is all well and good having accidents by arrangement, as with the much-hyped event in 2009 (even that didn't go very well according to newspaper reports) but faced with a real situation we have grave concerns as to whether Cumbria's emergency services could cope with an event such as the Fukushima one.
20/3/11 BBC Gives 2 minute advertising space to EdF's Chief Executive For no apparent reason, the BBC managed to give Vincent de Rivaz a slot on the Andrew Marr Show to talk about why the U.K. needed to press ahead with nuclear development.   There was no preamble to the item indicating that degree of involvement of EdF and its sister company Areva, who would stand to lose an awful lot of money if the events in Japan were allowed to influence future nuclear development.   His statements that nuclear power was needed to fulfill our energy needs went unchallenged.    In a blatent display of bias, there was no-one around to counter anything he said.   What possible attraction can there be for politicians to this company?   Answers on a post-card, please. See:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12799059  for a replay. The poor man had already been obliged to issue a statement explaining why his company's prices were so much lower in France than the UK.   Something to do with France having nuclear energy, apparently.   Quite where much of the electricity supplied to the South East of England via a piece of wire under the English Channel comes from is not explained.   As we note elsewhere, France is a net importer of energy and a considerable proportion of its populations are in what is called "energy poverty" these days. On Question Time on Thursday, 17/3/11, the BBC also managed to give Kelvin McKenzie space to support nuclear whilst, in the process, getting almost every fact incorrect.   Baroness Warsi suggested that the industry would go ahead with subsidies, a point picked up by a Labour politician so dynamic we have forgotten his name.   Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat, said that there would be no development of nuclear as the industry would need massive subsidies which would not be forthcoming.   Wish we could believe him.   However, he did point out that the industry received over £1 billion p. a. just to clean up the mess - effectively a subsidy.   No doubt the subterfuge of subsidies by another name will come to the fore when the budget is announced this week. More hopefully in the Sunday Times this week there were several articles dismissing nuclear development, perhaps significant after the editorial last week suggesting that events in Japan should not deflect us from the current course.   One letter in response suggests that only 56 people died as a result of Chernobyl, when the on-the-ground figures suggest 60,000 in Russia, 140,000 in Belarus/Ukraine.   If the letter writer was informed enough to quite the World Health Organisation's figures, then surely he must have been aware of the more realistic ones?   Perhaps even knowing Greenpeace's figure of a third of a million.
19/3/11 Stupid Statements Following Fukushima's Problems It has been interesting to see the pro-nuclear lobbyists endeavouring to minimise the dangers stemming from the radiation leaks.   Statements such as, "Let's put this into perspective:  20,000 have died as a result of the tsunami and quake, how many have died as a result of Fukushima's problems?"   Surely they must know that some effects of exposure to radioactivity take many decades to manifest themselves and that the full extent of the leakage is, as yet, unknown.   We note in our questions that the World Health Organisation puts deaths due to Chernobyl at 65, while doctors and hospitals dealing with the relevant population know it is 60,000 in Russia and 140,000 in Ukraine/Belarus.   Greenpeace suggest that a total of a third of a million people will die in time.   Most people will accept that it is impossible to protect a population from natural effects, such as the quakes and tsunamis, but do not accept that the additional threat from an unnecessary technology whose management has shown scant regard for safety and the environment - whilst remaining protected by governments.   The Tokyo Power and Electric Company have broken the regulations 29 times in recent years.   Sadly, this pattern is repeated in almost every country which has nuclear power.   The U.K. has a similar appalling record.   Tony Benn, one of those responsible for the original deployment of civil nuclear power stations, has complained that he was misled and not told of many things which he, as minister, needed to know in order to make an informed decision.   In fact, he say, he was not even told about the Windscale fire as his staff "didn't want to bother him".   After he left office he eventually discovered that the civil nuclear industry was actually producing zirconium for use in the American nuclear weapons programme, apart from many other facts that were kept from him.   One has to wonder whether Mr. Huhne believes he has all the facts, or have some well-meaning (!) civil servants decided to omit some pertinent information? Another statement - this time from experts - "the explosions are not nuclear explosions".   In as much as they are not atomic bombs, fair enough.   In practice, however, the end result will be fairly similar - as a result of an explosion, radioactive material will be released into the surrounding water-courses and atmosphere, affecting the entire environment, causing death, injury and pollution for many many years to come. Then there is the "the UK is not on a tectonic plate".   Presumably they mean that we are not subject to eathquakes of the magnitude experienced in Japan.   The latter's nuclear plant problems stem from a failure of cooling water supply.   On at least two occasions in the last two years, the cooling water system at Sellafield has failed.   Needless to say, managers said that there was no risk at any time.   However, an earthquake centred on Eskdale - a mere 5 miles from Sellafield's pumping station at Wastwater - occurred.  Shortly after, another earthquake occurred within 60 miles of that original one. As well as incidents noted throughout this site, including fires and leaks, here are a few more that have escaped from the secret society that is the nuclear industry: 2010 April Sellafield nuclear processing facility dumped five bags of radioactive waste in a landfill site after a faulty scanner passed them as safe. 2010 March Sizewell B shut down for seven months following a problem with the primary cooling circuit.   The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate says that it is likely that other pressurisers pose a risk too, but still allowed Sizewell B to restart. 2010 March Magnox, fined £250,000 for allowing radioactive leaks from a holding tank to exist for 14 years at Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. 2007 January Cooling water from the spent fuel pond of Sizewell A leaked into the North Sea. This was only detected by accident. 2010 June Unfavourable report by nuclear inspectors reveals: problems identified in the report included failure to meet a 90 per cent target for retrieving sludge from a storage pond; a (minimal) leakage of water from a storage pond; a leakage of radioactively contaminated water; a loss of cooling water on January 22; failure to ensure the training of individuals and the closure of line three of a waste vitrification plant. Sellafield has been awarded £1.5bn by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for hazard reduction work. Mr Huhne said: “We are very aware of the importance of energy to West Cumbria and very aware of Sellafield, in particular, to our national strategy. The expertise that is here, the professionalism, the dedication of so many people.” We await with interest the probable backlash from the nuclear industry once all the Fukushima problems have been taken off the front pages.
26/2/11 Dissenting Scientific Opinions - Any Chance They Will Be Heard? Even more evidence that the government seem set on pressing ahead with new nuclear - regardless of its merit - comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/nuclear%20subsidies_report.pdf http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/nuclear%20subsidies_summary.pdf We were particularly interested (and incensed) by the by fact that the subsidies outweigh the cost of the fuel produced! The answer to how politicians can be so readily persuaded may be found in an explanation of "The System" in "Yes, Minister!":  the lobbyists have the ear of the civil servants, who in turn have the ear of the minister. Industry thus controls the politicians.   Of course, that amenability also pays dividends when politicians and civil servants have to seek alternative employment.
Where There's a Wheel There Must be a Subsidy The current edition of Private Eye has an amusing article about EdF sponsoring the London Eye ferris wheel.   Referring to the dawn illumination of the wheel as a cynical example of cockeyed greenwash as a stunt, the article explained that EdF's PR people had announced that the idea was a "clarion call to Britons to take action against climate change and sign up to EdF's Team Green Britain".   The Eye translated this as, "a French energy company wasting energy in order to ask British people to save energy".   Still, it no doubt helped that EdF have friends in high places . . .   Just across the river, in fact! Not to be confused as being any kind of subsidy, more than £400 million has been committed to expanding the national grid.   All part of a £5 billion scheme to assist the likes of RWE, EdF, etc.   The grid companies investing in growth are guaranteed a 6.25%  return on their investment.   Should the unthinkable happen and there are cost over-runs (surely unlikely!) they can get back 75% of those, too.   So, not only are the public to pay very much more for their power, but they will also have to fund its distribution, regardless of the rationality of the scheme being provided with access to the grid. 26/2/11 Yet Another Non-Subsidy Benefit to the Energy Industry - They Would Have Us Believe According to a recently-released press article by Greenpeace, "Energy bills will rise because Government proposals will handover £3.43bn to nuclear generators for doing absolutely nothing different. The proposals to introduce a carbon floor price as part of the ongoing Electricity Market Reform (EMR) consultation could end up benefiting existing nuclear generators to the tune of £3.43bn between 2013 and 2026".   Interestingly, British Gas has just announced record profits - up 24% from last year.   With the current middle-east situation escalating, it might seem that a vast majority of the U.K.'s residents will soon be, like the French, in fuel poverty.   No wonder that EdF want bigger subsidies with less and less risk.   The full Greenpeace press release can be found here.
Mission Impossible Source:  Daily Telegraph, 26th January, 2011 The Energy Committee said it was "sceptical" that Britain's target of switching on two nuclear power stations a year between 2020 and 2025 would be reached. The UK needs a huge number of new nuclear power stations to make up for the coal-fired stations being switched off over the next decade. However, the committee warned that the Coalition's new planning system did not appear to be capable of making sure the 12 new stations are located in the right places to be linked up to the electricity grid. "Hooking up this amount of nuclear and other generation to the national grid poses an unprecedented challenge," said Tim Yeo, its chairman. "Two plants a year is a very high target to reach. The [system] lacks any real framework for coordinating the process of siting and linking up the new power stations." The MPs' report also cast doubt on current plans to make sure there is a deep hole for disposing of radioactive waste within 110 years. It called on the Government to insist that there are sufficient interim ways of storing the material before allowing new plants to be built.   Original article.
More from the "You Can Trust Us" Department
Sellafield security 'failings' prompt major anti-terror review Wednesday, 15 December 2010 Alleged security weaknesses at Sellafield have prompted an anti-terror review of nuclear plants and other sensitive installations, it was claimed today. SellafieldSellafield Ltd has declined to respond to claims in The Times newspaper that lapses may have come to light during an exercise to simulate a terrorist attack. Sellafield is protected around the clock by its own armed police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.  A spokeswoman for Sellafield said: “Security arrangements are kept under constant review as part of a continuous process to ensure existing arrangements are robust and effective.   We do not comment on detail of operational security matters.” The Times - which has not detailed the alleged weaknesses - says that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary is carrying out an assessment of security at nuclear installations, pipelines and oil refineries, but it says the focus is on Sellafield and its plutonium stocks. Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command and MI5 are also said to be involved. Sellafield has about 100 tonnes of the substance, which can be used to make nuclear bombs - believed to be the biggest in the world.   Most are in the product and residues store, which took five years to build and opened this year.   It contains more than 36,000 cubic metres of concrete, the same amount of steel as the Eiffel Tower and enough cable to stretch from London to Paris. A review was ordered by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in March. This involved Sellafield opening its gates to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Authority to make sure stocks are properly secured.   Mr Brown said he had invited the inspection as part of British backing for US President Barack Obama’s general nuclear global plan.   One of the main aims was to “secure all fissile material around the world” amid concerns of terrorist risks. Although ordered in March, the checks were not expected to take place until this autumn.   Security at Sellafield was stepped up after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York, but arrangements for safeguarding plutonium were criticised last year by an international group of scientists and non-proliferation experts. The British Pugwash Group described the way plutonium was stored as “manifestly ludicrous”. Source:  http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/sellafield-security-failings-prompt-major-anti-terror-review-1.790660?referrerPath=2.2978
Future Waste Disposal Costs to be Capped at Around £1 billion Although it must not be construed in any way as being a subsidy, the costs of future disposal of nuclear waste are expected to be capped at around £1 billion, with any surplus being paid for by the UK taxpayer, the government announced on Tuesday.   Interestingly, the current cost of decommissioning Sellafield is running at over £1.5 billion p.a., and that is still not enough to permit the original programme of decommissioning to be carried out!   So, to be able to forecast that in 160 years time £1 billion will be sufficient . . .    Even with the current low levels of inflation, that seems unlikely.   Any excess will be funded by the taxpayer, but will still not be a subsidy. Needless to say, the energy companies - with the exception of RWE, who are greedily suggesting that they shouldn't have to pay at all - are delighted with the deal for which they have long lobbied. Amusingly, one company has said that there may be a delay in a 2018 completion date;  admitting that, "Sometimes these things take a little longer and come in a bit more expensive than expected."   Except, that is just what we have been saying will happen.   Should it be unexpected by more experienced people than us? We should, perhaps be rather more concerned about what is going to happen to the waste.   Not just the legacy waste from Sellafield and Douneray, but from all the other sites around the country, if they go ahead as planned.    With only the Longlands Farm site in prospect, is it likely that all the country's waste will end up being shipped around the UK before being shoved in a deep hole in Cumbria?   It certainly seems that way.   Interesting that some materials from other sites, ultimately destined for Sellafield, is held up because of a shortage in flasks for its transport. The Telegraph reported on the subject: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8187222/UK-taxpayers-face-unlimited-nuclear-waste-bills-if-costs-spiral.html
WORKERS IN CHEMICAL PROBE Wednesday, 17 November 2010 FOUR Thorp workers were detained in hospital over the weekend after a chemicals incident in the Sellafield plant. The four Thorp workers said they felt unwell while working on a chemical pumping system and were kept in hospital for observation. The men have since returned home. Thorp was still shut down at the time for routine maintenance, as part of which work was taking place to replace a stand-by pump in the chemical plants. A Sellafield spokesman said: “This is a routine operation which has been undertaken on many occasions using the same methodology without complication. [This is followed by the inevitable, mandatory clause:] “There has been no release of radioactivity and extensive checks undertaken have confirmed that all plant parameters are normal. Any incident that compromises the health and safety of the workforce very seriously.” The company said a full investigation is under way. Source:  http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/workers-in-chemical-probe-1.781032?referrerPath=home
We have recently come across a few articles from the Scottish Herald which we were previously unaware of.   You may find them interesting.  We have compiled them into a single document:   Click here to view them. For some sceptics, there has been ignorance of the Redfern Inquiriy's remit.   Click here to read Mr. Darling's words to the House.

Sellafield "Like BP's Texas City Before the Fire" Source:     http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/sellafield-texas-city-nda Terry Macalister
Tony Fountain, a former BP executive, describes working practices at Britain's largest nuclear site as similar to those at the US refinery that resulted in a catastrophic fire There are similarities between the poor operating practices at the Texas City oil refinery that blew up in America and the troubled nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria, the former BP executive brought in to shake up the government's nuclear clean-up operation has warned. In his first interview as chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Tony Fountain admitted there was still a long way to go before Europe's biggest atomic site was brought up to the highest possible standards, although he said progress had been made by a new private sector management team.   "The parallel to Texas City is apparent. I have talked a lot about it with senior executives," said Fountain. "If you look at Texas City, there were many kinds of practices, operating practices among them, where people had become habituated to a state of affairs that, if you stepped in from outside and took a look, was not appropriate for the nature of the activity. "I think that is absolutely true of what happened at Sellafield… Legacy companies had a different set of priorities. There was clearly a set of practices that developed round those [untreated waste] silos that, if you stepped in there, did not have the right level of priority, did not have the right level of challenge, did not have the right level of spend – which is why it is where it is now and needs to be dealt with with the priority it is getting." Fountain's organisation owns Sellafield and a deadly stockpile of 100 tonnes of plutonium but handed over day-to-day control of the Cumbrian site a little over a year ago to a private-sector organisation led by the American group URS Washington and Areva of France. The nuclear complex has recently been fined by the courts for breaches of health and safety regulations while struggling with equipment failures at a time when it is sitting on top of a mountain of plutonium described by an academic group last year as " manifestly ludicrous." Fountain had no direct involvement in BP's Texas City fire of 2005, which killed 15 workers, but said the lessons learned were applied throughout the oil refining business he presided over in Europe, Africa and Australia. Fountain said he had "kicked the tyres" at Sellafield and 18 other NDA sites and felt relatively confident he knew the scale of the task he has to tackle. When asked if he had been shocked by anything he saw, he said: "Shock is a strong word. But it would be right to say that the ponds and silos at Sellafield are attention-grabbing; striking in nature." Fountain comes in to his new post at a difficult time. Not only does the government's new energy policy partly depend on the NDA being seen to be	safely handling Britain's old atomic sites, but the £2.8bn annual clean-up budget is under stress as ministers attempt to pare back public spending following the credit crunch. Fountain said he knows that there is "extreme pressure on spending" as his organisation prepares for meetings in the next few weeks to cover the 2011-2014 public spending round, and acknowledged that the government's need to prioritise expenditure was a real and pressing one. "We need to ensure our planning is closely related to the government's Public Value Programme, to create a set of options that would be implemented if we were required to make cuts in expenditure," he said. "Against this backdrop, my overall thrust is to focus on ensuring the whole estate improves its levels of efficiency and execution." He said he had already seen a range of areas where the NDA's work regime could be tightened up to provide some of those savings. Sellafield, the biggest site and the biggest hazard by far in the NDA portfolio, is the obvious place to start. The Cumbrian complex, home to the now-defunct Calder Hall atomic power station plus the Mixed Oxide (MOX) and Thorp nuclear-fuel recycling plants, consumes almost half of the total NDA budget and "you don't get 100p in the pound" there, Fountain said. And he acknowledged that the government's desire to see a new generation of nuclear plants built in Britain will depend partly on public opinion being satisfied that the decommissioning of old stations is proceeding properly. "The legacy must be dealt with in a confident way, with value for money and as efficiently and safely as possible," he said. "We must show we are 'taking away the empties' before we build the new one, as it were. I think this is critical and I know my owners [ministers] have the same philosophy. They want to see us do this task well, stick to our knitting, because they think the dimensions of it are important so the public has confidence in the future newbuild." But Fountain also acknowledged that there could also be competition for supplies, and for skilled staff in an era when many have left the industry. "Clearly capabilities and skills are a common agenda. We need the right skills and capabilities… The newbuild programme needs the same things so we need to act cooperatively. There is no point in Peter robbing Paul." And Fountain sees his role not just as improving Sellafield and related sites, but also improving his own company. "The NDA feels like a start-up company... It's done a lot of things, but like a lot of start-up companies as it develops it becomes a bit cluttered," he said. "It's got quite a complex set of processes [around] itself, or around those it employs to work for it, and we need to become a much more effective delivery organisation."
From the Quarterly Report of the HSE On 24th July 2009, the licensee promptly notified NII of a seepage of a few litres of radioactive liquor from a corroded stored uranium hexafluoride legacy “Hex Tails” cylinder, held inside a storage building.  The Site Emergency Control Centre was appropriately manned for several hours, whilst the leak was promptly brought under control and sealed by the ‘on site’ Fire & Rescue team.  There was no escape of radioactivity from the building and no personnel were contaminated.   [Comment:  this is the standard response to any event.]  The volume (about three litres) and specific radioactivity of the acidic liquor, which had leaked from the ageing “Hex Tails” cylinder in a small localised area, breached the level defined within the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.  This resulted in the event being notifiable to the relevant Minister.   Timely notification was made concurrently by both HSE and the licensee.  The event was categorised as category ‘One’ on the International Nuclear Event (INES) scale.  The site inspector initially visited the scene of the event on 31st July, where appropriate arrangements were seen to have been implemented and proportionate containment measures applied.  The site inspector later discussed the licensee’s response with the site management on a number of occasions and subsequently received timely updates from the licensee.  The licensee continues to conduct appropriate tests, to establish the integrity of this cylinder and to identify other “Hex Tails” cylinders, which may be at risk of similar corrosion and hence potential leakage.  The licensee’s preliminary investigation report has appropriately called for a review of the safety case for medium term “Hex Tails” storage, informed by the emerging findings of the ongoing investigation into this event.  This approach is endorsed by NII.  The site inspector continues to monitor the licensee’s response and ongoing investigation of this event, which has been acceptable thus far.    Full details can be found here. From the Sunday Times, 14/3/10: Ed Miliband's adverts banned for overstating climate change Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm. The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control. The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again. It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising. The rulings will be an embarrassment for Miliband, who has tried to portray his policies as firmly science-based. He had commissioned two posters, four press advertisements and a short film for television and cinema, which started appearing in October last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks. They attracted 939 complaints — more than the ASA received for any advertisement last year. The deluge posed problems for the ASA, which is not a scientific body, so it decided to compare the text of Miliband’s adverts with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Based on that comparison, it ruled that two of the DECC’s adverts had broken the advertising code on three counts: substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims. Of the two banned adverts, one depicted three men floating in a bathtub over a flooded British landscape, and the text read: “Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash	flooding caused by climate change.  ”It then explained: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.” The second showed two children peering into a stone well amid an arid, post-climate-change landscape. It read: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” It then added: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”It was these additional claims, rather than the nursery rhymes or illustrations, that fell foul of the ASA, which ruled it was not scientifically possible to make such definitive statements about Britain’s future climate. The ASA said: “All statements about future climate were based on modelled predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.” It added that both predictions should have been phrased more tentatively. The ASA did, however, reject other complaints, including one suggesting the DECC adverts were misleading because they presented human-induced climate change as a fact. Miliband said: “On the one issue where the ASA did not find in our favour, around one word in our print advertising, the science tells us that it is more than 90% likely that there will be more extreme weather events if we don’t act.” Greg Barker, shadow minister for climate change, said: “It is so unnecessary to exaggerate the risks of global warming, and also counterproductive.” Ref.:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7061162.ece

Up-date:  9/3/2010

Amazingly (leastways, to us) is the oft-repeated statement that no-one has ever died as a result of working in the nuclear industry.   We know from past records of the 1950s and early 60s that death certificates did actually link some deaths with working with radioactive materials and consequence exposure to that.   When things got a little uncomfortable for the industry the root cause was usually ignored, and the specfic cause entered on the record.  

Having come across a reiteration of the statement recently in correspondence in a local paper, we asked Lord Hunt, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, just how many people had died or been made ill as a result of working in the industry.   He has (after only two month's delay) now told us that since 1982 [when the compensation scheme started] there have been 124 successful claims.   He adds that it is not possible to ascertain, either medically or technically why a cancer is caused.   We have to note that these 124 people must have been employed by the industry in order to benefit from the scheme.   The question remains, therefore, how many other unfortunates have suffered as a result of the pollution but are nonetheless excluded from the scheme!

Watching the Inquiry into the future of the nuclear industry in the north west, we have to wonder how Phil Woolas, M.P. , can justify his repeated assertion that the Cumbrian public are overwhelmingly in favour of future developments.   Not judging from the meetings we've been to, they aren't.   A FOI request for the evidence has been submitted.

Mr. Woolas also has problems with the number of people who will find employment as a a result of any proposed expansion.   Shady deals have already been done between the government and EdF, with much bargaining and jockeying for position.   We are sure that there is no connection between the perceived favourable treatment of EdF and the fact that it employs ministers and their relatives.   However, apparently the government has achieved success in that EdF has now agreed that 50% of the permanent workforce will be from this country.   (A bit of a hazy concept?)   Of that 50% a further 50% (i.e. 25% of the whole) will be Cumbrians.   Figures given by Woolas were 5,000 construction workers and 600 - 1,000 operators.   Somewhat of a discrepancy between that and the 100,000 talked about by a local MP.   Mind you, that one had a financial interest, having just allocated many millions of pounds of taxpayers money in a contract just before joining the company he was responsible for handing the contract to.   Apparently the government have been debating how much the can chip in to assist these foreign companies to develop their unwanted nuclear power stations in remote areas.   Strange when the planning guidance has always made the developer liable for any infrastructure improvements required as a result of their proposals.

Healthcare in west Cumbria might be a little behind the requirements in the event of nuclear development.   Being linked to the population levels, there will need to be an influx of people before the funding reaches a sufficiently high level for an increase in healthcare funding.   This may be as much as three or four years at best.   On the positive side, once the construction work has been done (don't be ill during this phase!) and the builders have moved on, waiting lists should come tumbling down.

Residents can be reassured that Mr. Woolas has a firm grip on what infra-structure changes will be required to enable the proposed nuclear new-build in the north-west:  better broadband connections and improvements to the A599, according to his evidence to the inquiry.   They are going to need very broad broadband to get cement mixers on-site down these country lanes!   - Oh and the high-speed railway line will help things along.   Except that it won't serve Cumbria at all, other than as a blur on the landscape.   High-speed trains don't stop any more than is absolutely necessary for revenue purposes.   So it will be Glasgow to Manchester or Crewe, and then on to London.   However, that is all academic now, as Lord Adonis announced the high speed railway line will be built between London and Birmingham.   This will save a whopping 15 minutes on the journey and destroy a fair bit of the Chilterns, but what the heck.   It is a start.   Or rather, it will be, once the crossrail link had been completed.
 

---

We note below some recent French mishaps and, elsewhere, the long catalogue of "incidents" at Sellafield.   Just to prove that these are not isolated events, we would point to the fire at Hinkley B Power Station, near Bridgewater, Somerset on 25th November, 2009:

Engineers are investigating a fire which shut down a nuclear power station. The active reactor at Dungeness B in Kent, was taken offline after the blaze broke out in a boiler annexe on Monday night.   Operator British Energy said there was no risk to the public and there was no release of radioactive material as a result of the fire.   Experts were on site trying to find out what happened. A British Energy spokeswoman said: "They are looking at the cause of the fire and will be bringing the reactor back online as soon as possible."   All 52 staff on site were accounted for after the fire and there were no casualties.

---

Other Notes: The Times 22 Dec 08 - Npower fined £1.8M for mis-selling gas and electricity to domestic customers.  Npower agents lied to customers by telling them that they worked for 'the electricity board', and by inducing customers to sign legally binding contracts by claiming that they were non-binding.
 
 
The Times 14 Dec 08 - RWE Npower seeks to pull out of investments in windfarms, including the one at Gwint y Mor in Wales, and the 'London array' in the Thames estuary.
 
Nov 08 - RWE Npower and EDF are setting up a joint company called Horizon Nuclear Power, for the joint exploitation by the two companies of the sites at Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Wylfa in Wales for new nuclear power stations.
 
Westinghouse reactors are only 33% efficient, which means that nearly 60% of the heat generated gets dumped in the sea.    Multiply that by the number of reactors feeding into the area and wonder what effect it will have on the various currents which affect our shores!

---

---

Nuclear Expansion
 HSE Spells Trouble

PARIS, Sept 25 (Reuters) - EDF (EDF.PA) has turned off the 1,300-megawatt Paluel power reactor 3 after fire broke out in the machine room in the non-nuclear part of the plant, it said on Friday.
The fire was put out and there were no casualties, it said.

"This had no impact on the plant's safety," an EDF spokeswoman said, but could not say when the reactor would restart.   (Sounds like Windscale in the 50s!)

PARIS, Nov 2 (Reuters) - EDF (EDF.PA) cut the production capacity of its reactor 2 at the Belleville plant in Central France to 60 percent after a fire broke out on Sunday in a non-nuclear part of the installation, the firm said on Monday.   "Smoke erruped at 1215 (1015 GMT) from the non-nuclear part of the plant," EDF said on the plant's information line.

"The fire was extinguished immediately," EDF said.

Source:  http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL260481220091102

In a rare joint statement, nuclear safety bodies in France, Britain and Finland on Monday ordered France's Areva (CEPFi.PA) and EDF (EDF.PA) to modify the safety features on its European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) due to insufficient independence between the day-to-day systems and the emergency systems.

Opponents to nuclear power latched on to the news, with France's opposition socialist party calling for a parliamentary inquiry.

CAP21, a political party founded by Corrine Lepage, a former environment minister, also said more investment should be made in renewable energy rather than nuclear.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has championed nuclear power, both at home and abroad, where he hopes French companies will benefit from a global drive to find ways of generating electricity that produce less CO2 emissions and are independent of oil price fluctuations.

The design problems come as a blow to Areva, which has staked its export growth on the EPR and is hoping that it will beat out American rival Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba (6502.T), to become the standard-bearer for a new generation of nuclear plants.

Pierre Boucheny head of French research at financial service company Kepler capital markets told Reuters Areva's financial visibility was obscured by unexpected hitches and delays in the construction of the firm's first EPR in Finland.

"This problem (over safety) might cause a delay of a few months, maybe more, but it's hard to say what it will cost," he said.

Non-voting shares in Areva closed 3.9 percent lower at 8.75 euros.

Areva said on Monday it was in talks to modify the design of the EPR plants before the end of the year and insisted the safety of the EPR plants was not in question.

EDF, which operates all of France's 19 nuclear power plants, said on Tuesday it had been asked to conduct a closer study of secondary systems at its Flamanville EPR reactor and would respond by year-end.
Areva has started building two EPRs in China's Guangdong province and in January Sarkozy gave approval for the construction of a second EPR plant in France.

Areva has also joined forces with Total (TOTF.PA) and GDF Suez (GSZ.PA) in a consortium to bid build at least four nuclear power reactors in the United Arab Emirates

Britain also is mulling whether to relaunch its nuclear energy programme with modern plants and the Italian government has signalled that it intends to build four new nuclear plants.

Source:    http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSL358767420091103?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

---

A tiny sign outside the picturesque Cumbrian village of Drigg points the way to "LLWR". There is nothing to indicate this is the road to Britain's main nuclear waste dump.

Barely a mile away lie 10,000 large, red steel containers – many in an open trench – that contain the low-level waste legacy of an industry that was established during the Cold War but is now set for expansion in the fight against climate change.

The sense of unreality is compounded by the cigar-toting figure of Dick Raaz. The 63-year-old American is the boss at the Low-Level Waste Repository (LLWR) and a man on a mission. He aims to ensure only the most toxic of Britain's low-level waste is housed at Drigg, so that it does not fill up by 2030 – as it is threatening to do.   [So the government will have to persuade the relevant "experts" to say the site is suitable, regardless of the true situation.]

"This is a robust disposal design. It's clearly overkill when you are dealing with waste which is at the bottom end of the spectrum (of toxicity)," he says during a whirlwind minibus tour of the 98-hectare (245 acre) site, which he describes as "a ride around the ranch".

Raaz is supported by the government and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is trying to open up a network of landfill or other sites for the disposal of rubble, earth or other very low-level radioactive materials.

He recognises that the orderly management of this waste facility – he hates the word "dump" [a rose by any other name . . .   no matter what it is called, it is still a DUMP!] – is vital if the public is to have faith in the wider nuclear industry and allow it to build a new generation of plants. He acknowledges that the sector has been bedevilled in the past by accusations of secrecy and inefficiency.   [He could have added, "dishonesty" and "total lack of respect for the environment and innocent lives".]

Raaz estimates it would cost up to £2bn to build another Drigg and accepts that getting planning permission for such a facility could be very hard. In the meantime, the former nuclear submarine commander wants to find ways of cutting costs at his facility, which is just a few miles away from the massive Sellafield complex from where much of the waste originates.

One proposal he has made to the regulators is to do away with the traditional procedure of placing the waste in various protective membranes, putting it in one of the 10,000 containers, which cost £10,000 each, then covering it in earth and concrete. "We think it's wasteful," says Raaz.

The managing director of LLWR, itself a consortium of American, Swedish and French companies, accepts that whether he is successful partly depends on dispelling some of the myths that have grown up around what exactly is contained at Drigg.

He describes suggestions that the site is home to Chernobyl waste, for instance, as an "extreme falsehood" that never made any sense, pointing out that much of the waste is contaminated clothing [pity the poor wearer!], wood and paper.   [Where, then, did the material alleged to have been contaminated by the Chernobyl fallout end up?]

He admits not all of the records on the containers' contents are as detailed as he would wish. [How convenient!   How can anyone prove that only low-level material is here - or even the contrary!] Advertisements placed in the local paper for former staff to come forward with information alarmed environmentalists. Raaz says the exercise brought some helpful responses.

The site head says much of his job has been about building closer links with the community around the site – he lives nearby – and being open and transparent in its operations. This warmth does not extend to the media, however, with requests to check all quotes and an official from the NDA sitting in on interviews.

The NDA last month completed a 14-week consultation [with whom?] on how to deal with low-level waste and is now working to "refine" its strategy. Insiders confirm that the policy is almost certain to switch to putting more waste in landfill and other sites not used in the past.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change says the use of landfill does not represent a major shift as it has been available for use for less toxic waste since 2007, although this is usually radioactive materials from the oil and gas industry or hospitals [not to mention the odd JCB or so and similar plant].The corporate sector is already convinced that an official policy for the wider use of landfill is on its way. Leading waste management firms such as the French-owned Sita group and the American company, EnergySolutions, are trying to press ahead with plans to use Cumbrian facilities at Keekle Head and Lillyhall for dealing with nuclear waste from Sellafield and elsewhere. A British firm, Augean, is trying to do the same near Peterborough [see below].

Around 90% of the UK's nuclear waste by volume is low-level, but the government also needs to deal with the much more dangerous high-level waste.

This is being held at Sellafield itself or at the different nuclear power plants around the country, pending a final decision about what to do with it.

In 2007, the government committee on radioactive waste management recommended the use of a deep geological repository. Finland and Sweden have built vaults deep below the ground where the high-level waste can be stored for the thousands of years it needs to become harmless.

In the UK, the government has so far called for expressions of interest from areas willing to consider housing such an underground repository, subject to geological surveys proving it viable.

Two local councils in west Cumbria – site of the vast Sellafield complex – have stepped forward.   [Just how many ex-Sellafield employees were involved in the councils and various quangos to ensure a satisfactory result for the nuclear industry?] But Fergus McMorrow, the chief executive of Copeland borough, said the whole process was at a "very early stage" and there could be no certainty about what people in the area would decide.

The energy department is known to be increasingly concerned at the slow progress with its need to find a long-term solution to high-level waste. The next generation of nuclear reactors it hopes to see built will generate more highly radioactive waste. The department wrote on 1 October to all local authorities in England "offering to give presentations to interested parties".

There was relatively little interest even on the Cumbrian coast – despite high unemployment and considerable social deprivation, and despite the awareness that public money at Sellafield and the nuclear submarine plant at Barrow-in-Furness keep the regional economy afloat.

In Whitehaven, outside the struggling Pizza Piazza and next to the peeling paint of the closed-down Adrenaline tattoo parlour, Mrs Burns says no one wants atomic waste dumps in the area but you have to be realistic: "Do-gooders want to shut down nuclear, but without Sellafield we would all be crippled."

Professor MacKay is whistling in the wind if he thinks it is possible to build the number of reactors he suggests in time to do anything to save the climate. The government of Ontario was recently quoted almost £14 billion for two reactors.

Ben Ayliffe
Greenpeace UK

---

Part of the presentation which was allegedly material in convincing Copeland and Allerdale councillors of the practicality of burying the evidence came from something called the "Yucca Mountain Project".   The report has now been shown to be flawed and thus irrelevant, albeit too late - as the decision had been made by then.   However, it may be of interest to know that Yucca Mountain is about 100 miles north west of Las Vegas, in a very arid area - quite unlike the parts of Cumbria being investigated.   An interesting video can viewed at the US government's site below.   However, one of the salient points has to be this quotation:

The median annual rainfall for Yucca Mountain, for the period 1999 - 2007 was <9½"   Source:  http://hrc.nevada.edu/data/unqualified/ORD-FY04-007/FinalReport.pdf

The median rainfall for Cumbria for the period 2000 - 2007 was 35.84"   (Directly comparable figures not available.)  Source:  http://www.bramptonweather.co.uk
Also of relevance is that the premise for global climate change predicts winter rain will increase by 30%, and there will be more storms.

In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble

By JAMES KANTER

Happy Returns

So, for an investment approaching $1 billion the nuclear industry has won more than $100 billion in federal support.   A good investment.  

In the UK, where politicians are so pecunious some even claim for a bath plug on their expenses, it is not difficult to imagine the kind of support and influence that these sums of money might buy.   The recent events of the East Coast Main Line railway service are interesting and relevant, in that (we understand) all the risks were farmed out to small subsidiary companies, leaving the parent company with little liablility and the government shocked and surprised that they had no leverage at all. 

The Value of a Contract and Insurance Policy

Returning to the nuclear industry, let us suggest that the usual poor quality contracts are drawn up by over-worked civil servants with little experience in the nuclear industry..   How can such a contract be enforced if all the parties involved are beyond control of the UK government?   The suppliers of the reactors, Areva (France), or Westinghouse - once owned by BNFL but now a division of Toshiba (Japan), are obviously going to be difficult to bring sanctions against.   When it comes to the actual corporations involved in the bidding, RWE n-Power is German, and EDF (despite its misleading television advertisement), is French.   The insurance risks for the industry are so high as to preclude any possibility of commercial insurance, so the UK government will have to foot the bill.   (i.e. take even more of the risk.)   We have already asked how much it costs to decommission a nuclear plant and been told that nobody knows.   So, how will the government assess the cost of the energy produced?   Will they just consign the cost of commissioning to the future, as they will consign the highly toxic waste produced by the new plants?   There are no plans even to attempt to process the waste - not even the hole in the ground burial.   All waste will have to be stored on the site where it was produced.   So, the risks get even higher for accidents (incidents) or hostile actions.

What is the True Cost of Nuclear Energy?

Even assuming that no money changes hands before the proposed sites are completed,  how can an honest assessment be made of the unit cost of the energy without knowing all the costs?   How will the government manage to enforce the commissioning companies to properly decommission their obsolete plants in 50 years time?   It seems to us that the profits will all go to the parent companies and the risks will be borne by the UK taxpayer, potentially along with the decommissioning costs should the corporations decide to ignore their obligations.

Meeting the Timescale

From the above article, it seems that there is not only a difficulty in successfully designing a generic reactor, but also the materials as strictly limited by the production capabilities of other countries.

Retiring from the Arena

From the Weightman paper, we learn that there are insufficient inspectors at the moment.   It would be impossible to train sufficient numbers in the short timescale envisaged by the Department for Energy (DECC) and already the scrutiny of plans for proposed new build sites is outside the capacity of the inspectorate to cope with.   In the event of an "incident", apparently, the whole process of screening new developments will grind to a halt.   At 450, the inspection effort by the department is the lowest of any country with nuclear facilities, being only 1/3rd of the average, and less than a fifth of the effort made in Mexico (2567).

We also learn that most of the current inspection team are due to retire soon - before these new plants could possibly be built.   The rules for civil servants will prevent them from being re-employed in the same or a similar field, at least for a period.   This means that their skills will be lost and the responsibility will fall on the relatively inexperienced newcomers.   Quite how many of these newcomers will be seconded from the companies submitting proposals for new build is not yet decided, but it is likely to be quite a high percentage.   Can this possibly be sensible?   Please remember the amount of money being invested in buying good will and changing attitudes - of both the public and the government.   There is a lot at stake for these investors and the government.