Do Not Add Fracking wastes to NW’s Already Intolerable Radioactive Burden

Frack Off, We are already being NUKED

Frack Off, We are already being NUKED

As you will have heard Lancashire is still under threat from Cuadrilla’s second fracking application at Preston New Road.  There is a demo tomorrow in Preston more here:

What you may not have heard is that Springfields in Preston is gearing up to produce “high burn” uranium fuel for the proposed 4 nuclear reactors in Cumbria. Some of the most dangerous Radioactive wastes known to man would be released to the River Ribble, the air, and Clifton Marsh landfill.

Radiation Free Lakeland’s message to Lancashire Councillors is:

Please do not add fracking to the already intolerable radioactive burden on the North West.  

More info:

Radioactive Risks of Fracking

Radioactive Risks of Nuclear


139 Years After Custer’s Last Stand, Lakota Sioux Fight Foreign Uranium Miners in Custer County South Dakota

Originally posted on Mining Awareness Plus:

Even as Obama pretends to love the Lakota Sioux, he does nothing to protect them from foreign uranium miners.
Obama greets boy at Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, Cannon Ball, ND, 13 June 2014, Off. Wh. House photo by Pete Souza
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, June 2014, by WH-Pete Souza
Custer Sitting Bull Little Big Horn NPS
Like a handful of battles in American history, the defeat of 12 companies of Seventh Cavalry by Lakota (Sioux), Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors rose beyond its military significance to the level of myth.

American Indians learned that they cannot beat the superior force of the US military in the long run, and instead must use lawyers to fight for the land.
Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903)
Charles Marion Russell – The Custer Fight (1903)
"Crying Earth Rise Up! Environmental Justice & The Survival Of A People: Uranium Mining & the Oglala Lakota People" (Copy Left by Owe Aku, Bring Back the Way ) Color added
Image from “Crying Earth Rise Up! Environmental Justice & The Survival Of A People: Uranium Mining & the Oglala Lakota People”(Copy Left by Owe Aku, Bring Back the Way); color added.

Most people think that these abuses of the American Indians are past history. But, they are ongoing.[1] In the…

View original 4,676 more words

Letter in Windermere Now –

The Lake District - pre the parochial National Park Boundary

The Lake District – pre the parochial National Park Boundary

Dear Windermere Now,
Radiation Free Lakeland have been misrepresented in the “Woolly Thinker”
article as having a “not in my back yard mentality”
The much hyped reactors at Moorside would produce less than 2% of the
UKs energy.  This could easily be achieved in far less damaging ways. The
developers Nugen wrongly claimed in every Cumbrian newspaper that the
amount produced would be 7%. In order to clear the decks and dump
radioactive wastes, new undemocratic laws have been put in place. This
is a form of abuse. Radiation Free Lakeland’s view is that geological
dumping of nuclear wastes should not be carried out in anyone’s backyard.

Not in the flat, arid, dry geology of Australia and not here in our
mountainous, complex geology. Geological dumping of nuclear wastes does
not equate to containment. Radioactive gases would be released, lifting
the ground, bringing wastes to the surface and contaminating water
supplies long before the planned percolation of radioactive wastes to
the Irish Sea. The proposed “high burn” waste from Moorside would be hotter than from existing plants and take decades longer to cool.

United Utilities say “We have had discussions with NuGen who have told
us that they expect to have cooling, construction and ongoing water use
needs. At this stage in development their exact needs are unknown.”
At present over 4 million gallons a day are abstracted from Wastwater and other sources such as the Calder and the River Ehen to cool the heels of
Sellafield. To put this into perspective: Thirlmere aqueduct, an
underground tunnel from the Lake District, two metres wide and 84 miles
long, moves up to two million gallons of fresh water every day into the
Manchester water system.

Scientists agree that another catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl and
Fukushima could happen anytime anywhere. Meanwhile ‘historic’
nuclear  wastes continue to arrive at Sellafield by the week. The logical option
is to STOP and CONTAIN

yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland


Anti Nuclear Art Therapy for Grown Ups!   #STOP MOORSIDE!

Anti Nuclear Art Therapy for Grown Ups! (&children)
#STOP MOORSIDE! Print out and Colour as much or as little as you like, and then pop in an envelope to send to: FreePost, Moorside, Have Your Say – let the developers NuGen (60% Toshiba/40% Engie) know that you will be boycotting Toshiba products as a result of their aggressive push for dangerous new reactors near Sellafield.

STOP MOORSIDE! North Cumbria CND, Cumbria and Lancashire Area CND and Radiation Free Lakeland are holding a series of events to protest against  the building of nuclear reactors in Cumbria.

These events are timed to run alongside and inform the NuGen Moorside Consultation. NuGen, a UK nuclear company, is a joint venture between Toshiba and ENGIE (formerly GDF SUEZ) bidding to purchase government (publicly) owned Moorside, farmland on the flood plain of the River Ehen, in order to build the reactors on greenfields in the village of Beckermet a few miles from Sellafield.

In order to gain the public approval necessary NuGen has launched the Moorside Consultation.  This was described by former NuGen Chief  Executive Sandy  Rupprecht as a means to “shape plans.” However, members of the public attending the consultation at Whitehaven on 16th May were told by a NuGen representative that “nothing will stop the construction.”

Thousands of people have already signed the ‘Stop Moorside!’ petition which says: “We urge David Cameron and the leaders of Europe to scrap plans for Moorside. The UK Government is planning to sell a vast area of Cumbria to the same companies responsible for the Fukushima disaster, so that they can build new nuclear reactors. Please don’t risk the safety of Europe by turning Cumbria into a nuclear sacrifice zone.”

Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland says: “We are bewildered why Toshiba should be engaging in an aggressive push for new nuclear build here in Cumbria.  Toshiba are still battling to contain the results of the  Fukushma disaster in their own country.  We saw their Reactor 3 explode before our eyes.  Their  latest efforts at containment have been halted by a ‘glitch’ which has lasted for over a year.  And even without accident or incident, the links between routine emissions from nuclear reactors and childhood leukaemia have now been confirmed.”

Irene Sanderson of North Cumbria CND adds, “The US Energy Information Administration recently concluded that using nuclear power as a climate ‘solution’ would prevent the deployment of the renewable technologies that are faster and cheaper at reducing carbon emissions and  are safer and cleaner overall to boot.”

The Stop Moorside petition will be available for people to sign at the protests.  There will also be postcards for pledging a boycott of Toshiba products.

Artists and musicians will be contributing to the Kendal event on 7th July. The events are open to all.

Carlisle 30th June – Leafletting and Demonstration outside the Hallmark Hotel
 (11am until 1pm)

Kendal 7th July – Stop Moorside – Music and Art!  10am -4pm at the Bird Cage.

Penrith 8th July – Leafletting and Demonstration outside the Methodist Church (from 11am)

STOP PRESS We have just heard that other events are taking place independently to #StopMoorside, a movement which is now growing apace:

Stephen from West Cumbria will hold a vigil at the top of Dent Fell on 3rd July. He says, “We all need to ‘Stand Up To Cancer’ and the main causes of cancer!”

References Moorside Consultation Toshiba and Fukushima Stop Moorside Petition Nuclear Power Kills Radioactive Spikes from Nuclear Plants, a Likely Cause of Childhood Leukemia Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases Rally at the Top of Dent Fell – 3rd July

We Don’t Need Nuclear Power

Dr Ian Fairlie

Jonathon Porritt

Jonathon Porritt

Dr Ian Fairlie and Jonathon Porritt on:

Why We Don’t Really Need Nuclear Power

Recently, interesting and lively correspondence on the merits and demerits of nuclear power has taken place between Dr Becky Martin, a geneticist formerly at Oxford University and Baroness Worthington, the Labour Party’s energy spokesperson in the House of Lords.

Dr Martin’s initial letter can be found at

Bryony Worthington’s response can be found at

Jonathan Porritt is co-founder of Forum for the Future, and of The Prince of Wales’s Business & Sustainability Programme, and was Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission from 2000 to 2009. He is presently Chancellor of Keele University.

Jonathan and myself were equally exasperated by Baroness Worthington’s reply and with Dr Martin’s permission we sent the following letter to the Baroness.

Baroness Worthington
House of Lords
London SW1 1A 0PW
Cc Dr Becky Martin
June 15, 2015

Dear Baroness Worthington

We were disappointed to read your praise for nuclear power in response to Dr Becky Martin. She will no doubt wish to reply, but we hope you won’t mind us replying as well.

If we understand your letter correctly, you are mainly concerned about the threat of climate change, and believe that nuclear is an important part of the answer. We are also very concerned about climate change, seeing it is the largest challenge facing us all today. But in our view nuclear is at best a distraction, and at worst a hindrance to tackling CO2 emissions. Let us explain why.

In 2005, the former Sustainable Development Commission (of which one of us was Chair) published a report which examined the contribution that a 10 GW new nuclear programme would make to reducing the UK’s CO2emissions. The answer was between 4% and 8%, depending on assumptions. By and large, the same is true world-wide: to make a significant contribution, hundreds of new nuclear power stations would need to be built around the world very quickly. This is simply not going to occur, despite your best wishes.

Regarding Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for nuclear power, we have tried to make sense of your comments, but they were unclear. Let’s keep it simple and straightforward. From the available LCA evidence, it appears that most renewables come in between 5g and 30g of CO2 per kWh, nuclear at an average of around 70, gas-fired stations at around 400, and coal-fired at around 1,000. Does this argue for more nuclear, or perhaps for more renewables?

At this point, I’m sure you’ll be asking the same question as us: what are the relative costs per g of CO2 saved? There are fewer studies here, but the US Rocky Mountain Institute has published several analyses concluding that efficiency measures are the most cost effective, and nuclear the least cost effective, mainly because of its eye-wateringly high construction costs. As you will be aware, the estimated costs of just one proposed station, Hinkley C, are about £24.5 billion. And nuclear costs continue to rise, whereas the costs of renewables continue to fall, at a gratifyingly rapid pace.

You conclude that we should support nuclear on “moral, ethical, scientific and environmental grounds”. This is stretching the bounds of credibility, as many people object to nuclear on precisely these grounds.

For example, take our really hard-to-handle and extremely radioactive nuclear wastes. Is it either moral or ethical to pass these problems on to our children and grandchildren, as we are now doing? You lay claim to ‘environmental grounds’, but what about the Irish Sea – the most radioactively polluted sea in the world as a consequence of Sellafield’s operations? And what about the dozens of Welsh hill farms still subject to food restriction orders as a result of pollution by the radioactive plumes from Chernobyl in 1986? And what about the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011? You say ‘scientific’, but what about the 40 or so studies world-wide indicating increased child leukemias near nuclear reactors?

In our view, as two individuals involved in these matters for more than 40 years, nuclear is so undemocratic, uneconomic, unsustainable, unhealthy and unsafe that anyone who continues to support today’s increasingly corrupted nuclear dream would appear to have lost at least part of their own moral compass.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Porritt
Dr Ian Fairlie

Council Urged: No Fracking in Lancashire – Take Responsibility for Existing Risk!

River Ribble

River Ribble

Letter sent today to all Lancashire County Council’s Development Control Committee members.

Dear Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee,

Radiation Free Lakeland are a voluntary group with supporters in Cumbria and Lancashire and we are writing to you to oppose the two applications for fracking you are considering tomorrow.

Both Lancashire and Cumbria already have an intolerable burden of accumulating radioactive wastes from the nuclear industry without adding fracking wastes to the mix. Tommorrow you will receive copies of 101 letters from people in both Cumbria and Lancashire asking that these two county councils get together to reinstate independent radiation monitoring.

We applaud Cumbria County Council’s opposition to geological disposal of nuclear wastes. However the support for new nuclear build and the accelerating dispersal of radioactive wastes from the nuclear industry by novel routes is already a very real and present threat to the people of the North West. Without adding Fracking to the toxic mix, there is already an escalation of risk to the public with:

  1. Proposed accelerated imports of Uranium Hexaflouride for new nuclear reactors.
  2. Uranium Enrichment at Capenhurst in Cheshire.
  3. Fuel manufacture at Springfields in Preston.
  4. At each stage there is dispersal of radioactive waste to the environment: to air, to landfill to watercourses eg the River Ribble.

At the same time as the acceleration of radioactivity to the environment is increasing the health risk to the people of the North West, there is an abdication of responsibility for that risk. We ask that Lancashire County Council take responsibility and

  1. Refuse all applications for fracking
  2. Reintroduce independent radioactive monitoring in Lancashire of the kind Lancashire County Council (Radiation Monitoring in Lancashire) did up until it was scrapped due to Council cuts a few years ago.

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

On behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland


Radiation Free Lakeland!

Radioactive Risks of Fracking

Radioactive Risks of Nuclear

Letter to Cumbria Cabinet asking for reinstatement of Radiation Monitoring

Correspondence with Lancashire County Council’s Chief Scientist

From: ENV Lancashire County Scientific Services
Date: 31 March 2014 14:44:29 BST
To: ‘marianne Birkby’

Subject: RE: RADMIL

Dear Ms Birkby

The decision to discontinue radiation monitoring was taken about three years ago
by the Lancashire Chief Environmental Health Officers group. This was mainly due to budgetary pressure and the recognition that the background levels of radiation were very well established.

It was also decided that the remaining equipment would be held by Lancashire
County Scientific Services and maintained in good working order in case it might
assist in the recovery phase of an nuclear incident.

As the pressures on budgets have not eased I cannot see RADMIL being reinstated in the foreseeable future.

I hope this answers your question adequately. If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.


Andrew Smith, BSc., PhD., M.Chem.A., C.Sci., C.Chem., M.R.S.C.

Lancashire County Council
County Scientific Services
Pedders Way
Riversway Docklands
Tel: 01772 721660 (Office)

The World & All that is in it, Endangered by Nuclear Energy, but it’s not their world to destroy


May Your God Go With You … in the work to Stop Nuclear and the Fossil fuel industries that Nuclear depends on.  This is a poignant post from the excellent Mining Awareness blog.  Especially relevant to Christians in Cumbria whose pastoral leader Lord Bishop Newcome is “enthusiastic” about “green” nuclear power.

Originally posted on Mining Awareness Plus:

We are to be Good Stewards, Not Destroyers of the Environment: The World is Endangered by Nuclear Energy (and weapons)

There is nothing clean or good about nuclear energy. It legally and illegally leaks deadly radionuclides into the environment along the entire fuel chain from uranium mining to nuclear energy production to the unsolved problem of nuclear waste. Many radionuclides are deadly for hundreds and thousands of years. Some are deadly for even longer than humans have walked on the earth.

The threatened Mexican Spotted Owl and almost 100 other animal and plant “species of concern” are endangered by proposed uranium mining in the Grand Canyon area. Unknown numbers are endangered by active and proposed uranium mines in the US and elsewhere.
Mexican Spotted Owl US FWS
Gierisch Globe Mallow

Even ISL (In Situ Leach Uranium Mining) has a big ecological footprint, as can be seen in the picture below of Cameco’s Crow Butte ISL uranium…

View original 763 more words