The return of Yucca Mountain?


Yucca Mountain once again being pushed as a geological dump: Nuclear Waste …Stop Making It!

Originally posted on GreenWorld:

yucca102The tortured history of the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste project took another twist Thursday as the NRC released a key portion of its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the project.

Judging from the reaction of the nuclear industry and its backers, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the release of Volume 3 (of five volumes, three of which are not yet completed) meant that the radwaste trains would begin rolling into the mountain this morning. 

In a statement on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s website, Committee chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), a steadfast supporter of all things nuclear, called the report “game-changing,” and said the American public can now have confidence that the repository would be in fact “safe for a million years.”

Not to be outdone, Environment and Energy subcommittee chair John Shimkus (R-IL), like Upton a guy who has ardently backed the nuclear industry no matter what…

View original 1,386 more words

Thorium – pie in the sky to keep the nuclear nightmare going

Grand Canyon

Ban on uranium mining at Grand Canyon upheld by Arizona court
Ruling protects national treasure against the possibility of opening it to 26 new mines and 700 exploration projects. “Developers” will no doubt be challenging this…. until NUCLEAR IS BANNED.

Thorium – same old pie in the sky to keep the whole nuclear shebang going… the 3 reactors planned for Cumbria would burn URANIUM.  The UK’s  insane agenda for new nuclear build is driving the ruthless push for uranium mining in countries previously free from uranium mining such as Peru.  Even what should be protected areas are under continual threat such as the Grand Canyon.

“The first thing to mention is about conventional fission reactors – they were never intended to work the way they do. It was envisioned that Uranium breeder technology2 would be used but since that technology had not been fully developed the current technologies were used as a stop-gap. However, after over 50 years of trying to develop the Uranium breeder technology little progress has been made. If it had then the problems of dwindling Uranium supplies would not be such an issue and hence one of the major advantages of Thorium would be removed”.

Stand Up to Cancer – Ban Nuclear Power NOW!

Stand Up to Cancer                                  BAN NUCLEAR POWER NOW!

Nuclear Power Stations Cause Childhood Leukemia – and here’s the Proof.

While the nation is urged to “Stand Up to Cancer” the known cause of cancer and other radiation linked diseases is being promoted and given obscene public subsidies like never before.

In August of this year Dr Ian Fairlie, an expert in the field of environmental radiation,  wrote an article in The Ecologist magazine.  Part of that article is reproduced below.  Please read it and remember that You Have the Power to Beat Cancer Sooner – just say NO to Nuclear, keep saying NO – do everything you can to prevent new nuclear build.  Remember nuclear is a choice, not a necessity and CHOOSE LIFE!

“Controversy has been raging for decades over the link between nuclear power stations and childhood leukemia. But as with tobacco and lung cancer, it’s all about hiding the truth, writes Ian Fairlie. Combining data from four countries shows, with high statistical significance, that radioactive releases from nuclear plants are the cause of the excess leukemia cases.

I can think of no other area of toxicology (eg asbestos, lead, smoking) with so many studies, and with such clear associations as those between nuclear power plants and child leukemias.
In March 2014, my article on increased rates of childhood leukemias near nuclear power plants (NPPs) was published in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity (JENR).

A previous post discussed the making of the article and its high readership: this post describes its content in layman’s terms.

Before we start, some background is necessary to grasp the new report’s significance. Many readers may be unaware that increased childhood leukemias near NPPs have been a contentious issue for several decades.

For example, it was a huge issue in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s leading to several TV programmes, Government Commissions, Government committees, a major international Conference, Government reports, at least two mammoth court cases and probably over a hundred scientific articles.

It was refuelled in 1990 by the publication of the famous Gardner report (Gardner et al, 1990) which found a very large increase (7 fold) in child leukemias near the infamous Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria.

Over 60 epidemiological studies confirm the link”

But the official take is to say that increased childhood leukaemia’s are caused not by nuclear crap but by population mixing.… Really!  Then why isn’t the government issuing a public health warning on the huge influx of workers that would be needed for the “Biggest Nuclear Development in Europe” ?   Of course it isn’t population mixing – the government and industry know this very well, but its a useful decoy from the real cause – which is radioactive emissions from nuclear ‘power,’ reprocessing and decommissioning.

Below is an exchange of letters with the author of the paper on “population mixing” which our government uses to excuse the nuclear industry from any blame.

—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: Population Mixing
Date: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:25 am

Dear Heather,

Thank you for your advice.

I support Core – but am not a member.

I am writing primarily as a mother who is concerned about
the significantly increased risks to all children from new nuclear

No one it seems is willing to take any responsibility while children are
collateral damage

Thank you again for your time.

yours sincerely,


—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: RE: Population Mixing
From: “Heather Dickinson” <>
Date: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:06 am
To: “‘'”
Cc: “” <>

Dear Marianne and Tim
As a retired researcher who worked in the area of children’s cancer over
10 years ago, I have no authority to issue health warnings to the
It would be more appropriate for you to ask the Department of Health if
they propose issuing health warnings.

I understand that the proposed nuclear power stations are a response to
the UK’s projected energy needs and, in particular, to supply these needs
without increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. If you wish to inform
yourself about this debate, I suggest you read:
“Sustainable energy – without the hot air” By David JC Mackay.
He points out that the British public needs to stop saying “No” to every
proposal to get the UK off fossil fuels in order to avoid catastrophic
climate change.

I shall not be reading any more of your emails, so please don’t bother
sending them.

I presume you are a member of CORE and I would like to point out that a
lady from CORE phoned me about 2 years ago about this issue and I told her
I no longer worked in this area. It is most unfortunate that you have
nevertheless decided to harass me about it.

Heather Dickinson

>—–Original Message—–
>Sent: 31 January 2011 21:01
>To: Heather Dickinson
>Subject: RE: Population Mixing
>Dear Heather,
>Thank you for your reply.
>The North of England Children’s Cancer Research Unit “could not comment”
>and advised that we asked you.
>Our question is “Will Cumbria (and other areas with proposed new nuclear
>build) be issued with a health warning regarding the dangers of
>”population mixing” in the vicinity of nuclear installations?
>If not you – who should we ask?
>yours sincerely,
>Marianne Birkby
>cc Tim Farron MP
>> Dear Marianne
>> Thank you for your message.
>> I cannot speak for the North of England Children’s Cancer Research
>Unit as
>> I have not worked there since June 2002, when I moved to a different
>> of research from children’s cancer.
>> I cannot speak for the Northern Institute for Cancer Research or
>> Research UK as I have never worked for them. The research you mention
>> not supported financially by Cancer Research UK.
>> I retired from Newcastle University at the end of September 2010.
>> Heather Dickinson
>>>—–Original Message—–
>>>Sent: 26 January 2011 15:50
>>>To: Heather Dickinson
>>>Subject: Population Mixing
>>>Dear Dr Dickinson,
>>>In explaining significantly increased childhood cancers around nuclear
>>>plants the government has been persuaded by the “population mixing”
>>>rather than emissions from nuclear power plants.
>>>A paper you wrote in 1999 describes population mixing as “a
>>>risk factor for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s
>>>especially in young children, accounting for over 50% of cases in
>>>and most cases in Seascale”.
>>>If all the proposed nuclear developments in West Cumbria go ahead the
>>>population is predicted to increase in a relatively short period of
>>>by tens of thousands.
>>>Will the North of England Children’s Cancer Research Unit / Northern
>>>Institute for Cancer Research/Cancer Research UK be acting on their
>>>research and advising the government to put out a public health
>>>the “significant risk factor”?
>>>yours sincerely,
>>>Marianne Birkby
>>>Wed 19 Jan 11
>>>Quantifying the effect of population mixing on childhood leukaemia
>>>the Seascale cluster
>>> The German KiKK study







HOT the anti nuclear Comic Novel sent to Cumbrian Councillors as an ebook has been claimed by a number of University and National Libraries The claim has been made on behalf of the Legal Deposit Libraries, these being the Bodleian Library Oxford University, The Cambridge University Library, National Library of Scotland, National Library of Wales and Trinity College Dublin. The Comic Book, “HOT” is actually the fourth book in the ongoing series “Chronicles of Wastwater”. Previous titles being “The Wastwater Gnomes”, “When the Water Flows” and “Swallows and Amazons For You For Life”.

“HOT” continues the journey of a retired farming couple, Tom and Ellen, who are trying to make sense of the government plan to dump heat generating nuclear waste from existing and new nuclear build in vast underground caverns as deep as Scafell is high, under their beloved Cumbria. One of the images in the book is of former Council Leader Eddie Martin who is seen as Superman following the County Council’s No vote on January 3oth 2013 The University and National Libraries are each entitled to delivery, free of charge, of one copy of every publication that they request a claim for.

Not all publications are claimed by the libraries but the obligation has existed in English law for all printed books and papers since 1662 and for electronic and other non-print publications since 6th April 2013. The Agency for Legal Deposit Libraries says “It helps to ensure that the nation’s published output, and thereby its intellectual record and future published heritage, is collected systematically, both in order to preserve the material for the use of future generations and to make it available for readers within the designated deposit libraries”.

Marianne Birkby the founder of Radiation Free Lakeland who wrote and illustrated “HOT” under the publishing title of Wildart Books said “while this is fantastic news that the University and National Libraries want 5 printed copies of the book (as well as the book to be sent automatically to the British Library’s archive), it means that we will be out of pocket by over £100. “HOT” can be printed as a print on demand book for those who would like an individually printed copy.

The book is freely available to view as an online book ….but the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries would like printed copies. We have negotiated with them to send one printed copy but it would be great to be able to send five. It is a funny old world when some of the real truths about what is happening in Cumbria regarding the ruthless push for geological dumping and new build can be found in a comic novel, while the public are continually fed the official line by government and industry. It would be great to have these novels published properly but at the moment it is all on a shoe string.” If anyone would like to sponsor the sending of five “HOT” comic novels to the Legal Deposit Libraries please contact Marianne on 015395 63671.


Agency for Legal Deposit Libraries

POSTCRIPT:  A supporter has just rung up to fully sponsor the books  being printed and sent to the Legal Deposit Libraries…



Stop Moorside say 95% of people we spoke to at Wasdale Show

Wasdale Show 2014  - Stop Moorside -

Wasdale Show 2014
- Stop Moorside -

This Saturday Radiation Free Lakeland went to Wasdale Show – arguably the most beautiful show ground in the world surrounded by the Lake District mountains and next to the deepest Lake in England, Wastwater.

95% of the people we spoke to were opposed to new build near Sellafield especially as there is no solution for the still accumulating existing waste, which needs 4 million gallons of water a day abstracted from Wastwater to cool its heels.

There was one good looking chap in long dreadlocks  however who stood at the stall for well over an hour.  He berated  us on our “lack of scientific evidence that Sellafield is dangerous” He claimed that ” it was dangerous in the 1990s but it is all safe now and new build IS going ahead”   Later on I noticed he had put on official Mountain Rescue gear so when I got back looked him up.  Seems he is well entrenched in  Sellafield largesse.  Sellafield is understandably keen for their staff  to apply themselves to good works such as Mountain Rescue, it is after all fantastic PR.

If you work for yourself or a small company it is really difficult to get time off  but  if you are a nuclear worker, as well as the time off,  you get paid … all public money.  No one would begrudge public money for Mountain Rescue,

( least of all me, who loves walking in the mountains and might one day need to be rescued)

But when public money is filtered through the nuclear industry it skews the social contract, especially so when the same staff then undermine volunteers who spend their own time and money campaigning for Sellafield safety, which includes prevention of new nuclear reactors.  Much of what Sellafield does (and does not do)  is secret even to those working on the site, many of whom will never set a radioactively protected foot in the most neglected and radioactively contaminated buildings.

So when good looking dreadlock chap  says “it is all safe now”  he most probably wholeheartedly believes it.

Here is some wonderful largesse courtesy of the taxpayer.

Ship of Fools

57 years ago today in 1957 :The Windscale Fire



Wasdale Show 2012
A write up about todays Windscale anniversary and a reminder that Radiation Free Lakeland will have a stand at Wasdale Show tomorrow with the Stop Moorside petition, information and a competition.
Look forward to seeing you there at this beautiful show in the most beautiful and most at risk area in the world.
57 years ago in 1957 – The Windscale Fire

On 10th Oct it will be 57 years since the worst nuclear accident in the
UK. The bravery of those who fought the 1957 blaze was without question
and they are remembered with our gratitude for preventing the far greater
catastrophe of a full on Lake Counties nuclear sacrifice zone.

Official estimates point to a possibility of 240 additional cancer cases
as a result of the Windscale fire. Studies reveal that the impacts of
nuclear accident and routine emissions may be far wider reaching than the
public is led to believe. One such study in 1995 by Dr John Bound, a
former paediatrician at the Victoria Hospital, Blackpool; Brian Francis,
of the Centre for Applied Statistics, Lancaster; and Dr Peter Harvey,
pathologist at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary found that the Windscale fire
was followed by a surge in cases of Down’s syndrome. Their studies were
poo poohed to protect the vested interests of the nuclear establishment.
This pattern has been repeated time and time again. History is now
repeating itself with the plan for untried and untested new build near

The ruthless push towards new nuclear build on the beautiful coastline of
West Cumbria mirrors the rush to build Windscale in order to produce
plutonium for the atomic bomb. While “safety features” like the last
minute addition of filters on the Windscale chimney helped mitigate the
impact of the inevitable fire, the dangers from nuclear are inherent and
accumulative. Nothing it seems is being learnt from history. The same
old uranium burning technology is being proposed now for new build. The
reactors being proposed are AP1000, a scaled up version of the
commercially unattractive AP600. The AP1000 boasts higher efficiency, in
other words it burns the uranium harder and longer producing much hotter
wastes, reactors under construction now in America and China have cooling towers 600 – 800 ft. high. The other “alternative” is direct cooling with huge sea installations.

Sellafield is dangerous enough and a big enough terrorist target without
putting untried, untested nuclear reactors next to it with the possibility of enormous
cooling towers the size of New York sky scapers or huge sea installations.

Please remember the Windscale fire on the 10th. Remember the voluntary
bravery of the Windscale workers and the involuntary bravery of all those
unacknowledged babies, children, men and women who have died, or suffered
health consequences as a result of the Windscale accident. The still
highly radioactive chimney which stands 350ft tall has also claimed the
life of steeplejack Neil Cannon who died after falling from the ongoing
‘decommissioning’. The death toll will continue without end if new build
goes ahead. Surely the time has come for Cumbrians to say enough is
enough and to join the resistance to new and more dangerous nuclear build.
There is a petition here:

Down’s Syndrome and Windscale

Death of Sellafield Worker


State Aid for New Nuclear – Privatised Profit – Socialised Risk is the ONLY Way for Nuclear!

EDF Toxic Turd

EDF’s Adorable Toxic Turd Mascot

Many Thanks to Everyone who Wrote to the EU commissioners – the Vote was only just lost by two votes but this  now gives impetus to future legal challenges and activism against  this outrageous decision which completely overturns their original resolve not to agree state aid.

The EU makes much of its ‘competitive market’ but EDF is largely state owned by the French government which makes a mockery of genuine competitive markets.

Now the EU has agreed to EDF’s begging bowl tactic to socialise the costs and risk of nuclear.

Below is a letter sent to the Commission from Ulli Sima, Deputy Mayor for the Environment of the City of Vienna

European Commission Commissioner Joaquín Almunia Responsible for Competition

Vienna, 23 September 2014

Concerns about Hinkley Point C decision

Dear Commissioner Almunia,

Cities for a Nuclear Free Europe1 (CNFE) has noted with concern press reports this week that the Commission will shortly approve the State Aid application from the UK Government for the Hinkley Point C nuclear project.

CNFE has earlier submitted a detailed position paper on the planned UK subsidy for Hinkley Point C, in conjunction with the UK & Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) and Stop Hinkley. A copy of that paper is attached with this letter.

The first question you as Competition Commissioner must surely answer is whether the proposed subsidies to Hinkley Point C are required in order for the UK to meet its energy security and climate change objectives. As noted in our joint statement with Nuclear Free Local Authorities and Stop Hinkley, we are of the opinion that the answer is clearly no.

Secondly is spending money on subsidy for nuclear power the most cost efficient way of reducing carbon emissions?
Again the answer is no – it would be much better to spend the money on other carbon reduction policies, such as the promotion of renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures.

Finally, does awarding subsidies to one form of low carbon technology constitute unfair treatment of other forms of low carbon technology which might be available from elsewhere in Europe? The answer is clearly yes.

1 Cities for a Nuclear Free Europe’ (CNFE) are a group of European cities that are concerned for the health and security of its citizens, and are concerned by different aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and the potential for serious accidents. In 2011, motivated by the Fukushima disaster, Ulli Sima, Deputy Mayor for the Environment of the City of Vienna, took the initiative to this informal network momentarily supported by 15 major European cities.

 The original response from the Commission to the UK Government in the letter dated 18 December 2013 was extremely thorough, and very lucidly laid out a long list of concerns and issues with the UK’s application. The legal rationale outlined in the letter was clear and showed the large number of high hurdles that would need to be overcome if the proposal were ever to be accepted.

It is therefore entirely incompatible with the original, rigorous approach adopted by the Commission that any approval decision should now be rushed through. In our view, the principles laid down in Article 13 TFEU require the outgoing Commission, when faced with a case of such importance, to allow the incoming Commission to evaluate the proposal and be responsible for the final decision, and not to take a last- minute decision, especially where a number of Member States have expressed negative views during the consultation.

We have been very surprised by the recent press reports and we very much hope that they are incorrect. Ultimately, in our view it is far better for the Commission to take its time with this decision, as it sets such an important precedent for energy policy in the EU; rather than rushing its approval through and increasing the prospect for a legal challenge.

This letter from CNFE is strongly supported by the UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities, which indicates strong local opposition to any hasty and inadequately reasoned decision by the Commission on Hinkley Point C. CNFE are also extremely concerned of the precedent that this anti-competitive decision would set for future contentious State Aid cases, particularly in the area of energy policy. Renewable energy across Europe could be hindered if the Commission supports this overly expensive and ultimately flawed attempt to reignite nuclear energy in the UK and across Europe.

I would appreciate a quick response to this letter, and CNFE would be very happy to meet with you and colleagues to discuss our concerns further.

Yours sincerely,

Ulli Sima
Deputy Mayor for the Environment of the City of Vienna