Did We Just Stop Radioactive Waste Going Into Whitemoss Landfill? Who Knows?

The River Ribble and Radioactive Landfill
The River Ribble and Radioactive Landfill
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Make Room for Radioactive Landfill!
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Make Room for Radioactive Landfill!
Radioactive Landfill
Radioactive Landfill  “Safegrounds” SITA ppt

A while back the brilliant anti fracking campaigner Tina Louise Rothery posted on the Radiation Free Lakeland facebook page requesting help to stop the huge expansion of Whitemoss landfill. We looked at Whitemoss, near Skelmersdale and what goes into the landfill is very, very  nasty ….even without radioactive wastes.

What we found though was that Whitemoss was indeed designated for receipt of low level radioactive wastes. According to the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan for 2015: “Currently low level radioactive waste is exported to Whitemoss Landfill site in Lancashire”. So we asked Questions under Freedom of Information.   What happened next is incredible. The reply came back within 6 days not from the Department of the Environment (who we addressed the FOI to) but from Whitemoss Landfill:

Whitemoss Landfill (25 July 2015)

…

The report you refer to has been corrected to say, “Currently low level radioactive waste is exported to Clifton 
Marsh Landfill site in Lancashire.” 

Whitemoss has never accepted any low level radioactive waste from Capenhurst or any other nuclear site. 

Rob Routledge 
Whitemoss Landfill Limited”

How on earth could the Councils have got it so wrong? And would low level radioactive waste have been “accidently” tipped into Whitemoss off the back of the uncorrected Local Plan?  Is deregulated “exempt’ High Volume Low Level Radioactive Waste already going into Whitemoss and is that why the Councils said low level radioactive waste is going in?    No one it seems is asking these questions.

So where does the low level radioactive waste from uranium enrichment at Capenhurst and from nuclear fuel manufacture at Springfields go?

As the owner of Whitemoss Landfill was quick to say and the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan for 2015 has been “corrected” to say: “Currently low level radioactive waste is exported to Clifton 
Marsh Landfill site in Lancashire.”

The nuclear industry is desperate to get shot of its wastes. These wastes are from the processes gearing up to new build and from decommissioning or “clean up” of old sites.   No – one it seems is questioning this or organising to stop the tsunami of nuclear wastes going into landfill.

Certainly Radiation Free Lakeland have been doing something but not enough by any means. For example we missed this one.. an extension granted in February ..up to the year 2035 for the dumping of radioactive wastes in Clifton Marsh landfill on the River Ribble: “The council noted that Clifton Marsh accepted low level radioactive wastes and that over the life of the extended site, LLW waste would become a greater proportion of the total waste disposed of at the site due to the reduction in household waste. However, the controls within the permit would continue to ensure that there would be no detriment to safety. The site was one of only four in the country licensed to accept LLW waste and, therefore, was strategically important.

At present input rates of 50,000 tonnes a year, only half the remaining capacity would be filled by 2035. To address this, Sita proposed a condition providing for five-yearly reviews of void space and the submission of revised restoration scheme if it became clear that restoration would not be achieved by the end date.

Proposal: Extension of time for landraising
Site: Clifton Marsh landfill site, Preston New Road, Preston
Authority: Lancashire”

Why is this radioactive poisoning of our watercourses, our land, our DNA being universally ignored? It is happening right NOW!!

Is it because people are not constantly reminded by NGOs or London University led group: Extreme Energy, to be on their guard against irreversible nuclear pollution of their water supplies? (London University’s experimental nuclear reactor is dumped in Drigg, Cumbria)

Radioactive pollution will not be removed by boiling.

  • Hazardous landfill is nasty – Radioactive Landfill is nasty with plutonium knobs on ….the European Commission helpfully tell us that: “radioactive gases will emanate from the disposal facility; these are not liable to affect the health of the population of another Member State”

What can we do?

….RESIST !    BAN NEW NUCLEAR!

CONTAIN WASTES ON EXISTING NUCLEAR SITES – NO DISPERSAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT  (note:  medical wastes are a tiny, tiny fraction of nuclear wastes – the radioactive wastes come from all parts of the nuclear chain from enrichment to reprocessing and decommissioning)

http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s57282/Clifton%20Marsh.pdf

WHAT THE EUROPEAN COMMSSION SAYS ABOUT LILLYHALL AND CLIFTON MARSH LANDFILLS

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:077:0001:0002:EN:PDF

EN

11.3.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C77/1

I

(Resolutions, recommendations and opinions)

OPINIONS EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMISSION OPINION

of 10 March 2011

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Lillyhall Very Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, located in Cumbria, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2011/C 77/01)

On 1 September 2010, the European Commission received from the British Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Lillyhall Very Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 8 October 2010 and provided by the British authorities on 13 December 2010, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

  1. The distance between the disposal facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Ireland, is 180 km.
  2. During the disposal facility’s operational period:
    • —  radioactive waste will be emplaced in the disposal facility without intention of retrieval,
    • —  the disposal facility will not be subject to a discharge authorisation for liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. However, radioactive gases will emanate from the disposal facility; these are not liable to affect the health of the population of another Member State,
    • —  in the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.
  3. After the disposal facility’s operational period: 
The measures envisaged for the final closure of the disposal facility as described in the General Data, provide reliance that the conclusions under point 2 above will remain valid in the long term.

EN

C 77/2

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2011

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Lillyhall Very Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the United Kingdom, during its normal operational life and after its final closure, as well as in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2011.

For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:077:0003:0003:EN:PDF

EN

11.3.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C77/3

COMMISSION OPINION

of 10 March 2011

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Clifton Marsh Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, located in Lancashire, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2011/C 77/02)

On 23 September 2010, the European Commission received from the British Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Clifton Marsh Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 11 October 2010 and provided by the British authorities on 25 November 2010, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

  1. The distance between the disposal facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Ireland, is 180 km.
  2. During the disposal facility’s operational period:
    • —  radioactive waste will be emplaced in the disposal facility without intention of retrieval,
    • —  the disposal facility will not be subject to a discharge authorisation for liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. However, radioactive gases will emanate from the disposal facility; these are not liable to affect the health of the population of another Member State,
    • —  in the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.
  3. After the disposal facility’s operational period: 
The measures envisaged for the final closure of the disposal facility as described in the General Data, provide reliance that the conclusions under point 2 above will remain valid in the long term.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Clifton Marsh Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the United Kingdom, during its normal operational life and after its final closure, as well as in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2011.

For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission

‘Old Sparky’: Coastal Fission

Sellafield's Railway Children
Sellafield’s Railway Children

In the current issue of Private Eye  ‘Old Sparky’  is well worth a read ……

Health and Safety

Coastal Fission by ‘Old Sparky’

Private Eye 21st Aug -3rd Sept 2015

In summer 2013 government spin doctors said a deal with the French to build two new nuclear power plants in the UK was in the bag (EYE 1351). It wasn’t. Now the spinners are in action again.

This time they are hinting that during the state visit in October of China’s president Xi Jinping, he will commit Chinese money to rescue the endlessly delayed nuclear projects. With his country’s dire record on industrial health and safety , Xi should feel at home in the ramshackle edifice that is much of Britain’s nuclear infrastructure.

The BBC was last week allowed to “uncover the secret story of Sellafield” with physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili gushing at his “exclusive, unprecedented access” to the Cumbrian nuclear waste facility, complete with hi-tech robotic storage processes. He faithfully parroted government policy: “Nuclear power alongside renewables, is crucial for our future energy needs – the cusp of a new nuclear age!”

What the professor didn’t see, just two miles up the coast, was the very low-tech 165 year old single track Barrow-Carlisle railway that is the industry’s Achilles heel. All UK nuclear waste travels along this storm-lashed line in “flask wagon” trains weighing hundreds of tonnes. They run the gauntlet between : four landslips in less than two years (in one, when a train became derailed another sent to rescue the passengers was itself stranded by a second landslip); a stone-built Victorian railway bridge with gaps in its flood eroded mortar; a frequently flooding culvert last repaired in 2009; manually operated level crossing gates; a signal-box usually only manned until 7.30pm although nuclear flask trains sometimes run at midnight.

In May 2010 a torrential storm washed away the embankment to within six feet of the track. Residents called the signaller but a train had already passed him and could not be contacted by radio. The train was only flagged down by locals waving their coats at it. In September 2013 a nuclear flask train (pictured) was derailed in nearby Barrow in Furness and in January 2014 70m of sea wall was destroyed by a storm leaving the line suspended in mid-air.

The “new nuclear age” may be ushered in on Chinese money – but what about the Victorian infrastructure.

Apology Called for Over Nuclear Power Claim

th-3

In this weeks Westmorland Gazette>>>

Apology called for over nuclear power claim

by Giles Brown

AN anti-nuclear campaigner is demanding an energy company print a series of corrections in the Cumbrian press after incorrectly “bigging up” the benefits of a proposed power station.

In April NuGen published an advertorial in all Cumbrian newspapers which said its proposed nuclear power station at Moorside, near Sellafield, would produce “seven per cent of the UK’s energy requirement”.

However, Marianne Birkby, of Radiation Free Lakeland contacted the Advertising Standards Authority pointing out this was incorrect and in fact it would produce only two per cent of the UK’s future energy demand.
The ASA sent a letter to Mrs Birkby earlier this month saying: “Nugen have assured us that the ad has been withdrawn and that they will not repeat the claim … in their future advertising. We consider that this will resolve the complaint without referring the matter to the ASA Council and will consequently be closing our file.”
A 10-week public consultation regarding plans for the Moorside power station ended on July 24.

Mrs Birkby has written to Westmorland and Lonsdale MP Tim Farron asking him to question Amber Rudd, secretary of state for Energy and Climate Change, about whether NuGen should put an “equally prominent” piece in the Cumbrian press apologising for the error.
“The whole thing is about bigging up the plan for Moorside and making it seem as though it is absolutely fantastic and that is a big deal when this is a consultation of national and international importance,” she said.

“At the very least there should be a one line paragraph somewhere in the newspapers as it was a double page advertorial and there should really be an equally big section given over to the paper for an apology.”

A spokesman for NuGen said although Moorside would produce enough power to cover seven per cent of the UK’s electricity needs, it would only cover two per cent of its total energy needs.

There had been a “mistake” confusing this information in its Statement of Community Consultation.

He said: “When the error was spotted, NuGen acted promptly to re-print and re-issue the Statement of Community Consultation, and acknowledged the error in its next round of advertising.
“NuGen was contacted by the ASA about the issue and was happy to confirm to the ASA that the misprint would not be repeated. The ASA has subsequently advised that it is satisfied with the response.”

A spokesman for Mr Farron said his office would pass Mrs Birkby’s concerns onto the secretary of state.

Mr Farron said: “Trust is an important issue in this debate. The claims made by either side must be accurate and truthful.”

**********************************************************************

NOTE:  Tim Farron MP is right to say “the claims made by either side must be accurate and truthful”  but this is not a level playing field with an equal platform for both parties.   One side has already (according to NuGen) spent hundreds of £millions on PR to promote new nuclear build in Cumbria.  While the other…..

GUEST BLOG: Nuclear Trains, Leafletting at Warrington & Sellafield

German Protesters target nuclear train - 2011. The nuclear industry in the UK is getting a free ride, and it is taking us all along the radioactive tracks.
German Protesters target nuclear train in 2011 to halt nuclear transports. The nuclear industry in the UK is getting a free ride, and it is taking us all along the radioactive tracks.

GUEST BLOG: Nuclear Trains, Leafletting at Warrington & Sellafield Fallout

by Martyn Lowe of Close Capenhurst Campaign

While Leafleting at Warrington Bank Quay Station on Tuesday August 25th 2015

Tuesday afternoon I went over to Warrington again in order to do some more
leafleting about the nukiller waste trains which go through the town. This
time it was just the two of us doing it as that’s all which is needed with the
number of people who pass through the station. It was just John who is 78 &
myself who’s 65.

We have been leafleting the station together a number of times over the last
year or so. Thus we got some people saying they had received our leaflets the
other week. That’s good as it means we are now starting to build an awareness
of the issue in the area.

Then came the interesting interlude when a transport police car drove in the
forecourt & one of the 3 cops in it came over to have a word with us. He said
that they had been alerted about us being outside the station, and how it was
a waste of his time to of been called out.

[ Very obviously we had been reported or perceived as being young dangerous
tearaways who needed to be watched.]

The funny thing being we always leaflet at the same spot, which means we get
to pass them on the maximum number of people, and is not on railway land.
That’s why just the two of us is all that’s needed at any one time.

As I keep saying about these leafleting sessions.
We are there to communicate our concerns & not holding a demonstration.

Anywise – we had a chat with the said railway police officer about the waste
trains going through the station, and I mentioned in passing when they are
scheduled to pass through the station. He asked me how I know and so I told
him about the realtimetrains website.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced

He said he was not aware of it, which is exactly the same line I’ve heard from
the transport cops while leafleting at Chester station.

All of which makes me wonder just how well informed the transport police are
about just what hazardous goods are transported on the railways.

End of story – after this friendly chat he was happy with what we were doing.
So we shook hands goodbye & waved to him as he drove on to the next location.
There is one other interesting aspect to this story.

The policeman we talked with mentioned in passing that he had been up to Cumbria, and met with some of the Civil Nukiller Constabulary [ CNC ] at Sellafield. One of the CNC told him that if there was a major ‘accident’ at the plant, then the area effected by any fallout would stretch over to Northern France.

Now that’s something which is not normally mentioned by Sellafield Ltd.
We will be back to do some more leafleting at Warrington in a while.

********************************************************************

MANY THANKS to MARTYN and his colleagues at Close Capenhurst Campaign and to the Nuclear Trains Action Group for keeping the issue alive… is anyone listening???  

Nuclear Hotseat brought to you despite being hacked: This is must listen especially for Cumbria!!

Nuclear Hotseat
Nuclear Hotseat

Nuclear Hotseat #217 – Ian Fairlie explains what radiation deniers (aka “hormesis” proponents) say, why it’s baloney (not his word, mine), and why the NRC allowing them to petition to replace Linear No Threshold (“no amount of radiation exposure is safe”) requires our immediate mega-response. PLUS: Japan restarts nuke in Sendai just in time for nearby volcano to threaten to blow its top; Fukushima species mutation update; Bernie Sanders’ nuclear policy; and beer is no way to commemorate the violent death of almost a quarter of a million people. Website still down; download from this link: http://lhalevy.audioacrobat.com/…/lhalevy-20150819120854.mp

Westmorland Gazette falls into softly softly trap of “clean” nuclear energy

Steam for the proposed Moorside plant's three reactors would be made from the Irish Sea.  Stirring up decades of nuclear waste dumped there from Sellafield....the arse end of the "clean" nuclear chain.
Steam to turn the turbines of the proposed Moorside plant’s three reactors would be made from the Irish Sea. Stirring up decades of nuclear waste dumped there from Sellafield….the arse end of the “clean” nuclear chain. No amount of air freshener will clean that up!

The Westmorland Gazette  has fallen into softly softly trap set by decades of nuclear grooming.

The Westmorland Gazette say:  “The new Moorside power plant will generate clean energy but only by leaving a dirty legacy”.  Good, Fantastic  that they recognise the undeniable “dirty legacy.”   But as the nuclear chain leaves a dirty legacy at every point starting with uranium mining,  it begs the question :

at what point is nuclear energy clean?

*uranium mines in Kazakhstan annihilating the Saiga antelope’s habitat, in Australia trampling indigenous people’s rights, in America polluting the Grand Canyon.
*transports of uranium hexaflouride to Ellesmere Port and then manufacture
of fuel at Springfields in Preston spewing radioactive wastes to the River
Ribble.
*the ditching of renewables to make way for nuclear
*increases in leukemia and other radiation linked diseases
*spent nuclear fuel transports i.e. nuclear waste by train arriving at Sellafield for reprocessing
*spent fuel being dunked in gallons of nitric acid making yet more high
level liquid radioactive wastes
*open ponds of hot radioactive wastes
*animals being culled on the Sellafield site
*people duped
*collusion between government and industry
*silence of conservation groups some even funded by the industry (public purse)
*Wastwater’s freshwater being used to cool nuclear wastes
*Thirlmere being lined up to become a nuclear “resource” for proposed Moorside reactors
*meaningless consultations aimed at “shaping plans” for more dangerous nuclear sprawl by companies such as Toshiba who should be facing human rights abuses for their role in the Fukushima disaster
*militarisation of a rural area
*dumping of democracy
*dispersal of nuclear wastes to the environment at every stage of the chain

Clean??  Only in the fevered minds of the countless  PR consultancy firms employed to greenwash the most extreme and polluting industry there is.

Hinkley C Mothballed – Is it in its Death Throes?

Return to Sender! Nuclear Waste from Hinkley to Sellafield
Return to Sender! Nuclear Waste from Hinkley to Sellafield

th-1

The excellent news service No2Nuclear Power looks at Hinkley C and asks :

“Is it in its death throes”

“Two very recent articles in Click Green and Professional Engineer indicate that Hinkley Point C is now officially mothballed. Indeed the project seems to be in its death throes.
We already knew that site preparation work at Hinkley Point C was stopped in April 2015, up to 400 construction workers were laid off, and the Final Investment Decision was delayed until the autumn. (1) What wasn’t clear at the time was that NNB Genco – the consortium planning to build the reactors which consists of EDF Energy, China General Nuclear Corp and other investors – put a cap on future spending on the project. (2)
On 1st July the site entered Care and Maintenance which means that activity at the site is limited to the management of material stockpiles and water management zones, remediation of asbestos contaminated land and archaeological surveys. (3)
The budget cap seems to have been greater than the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) was expecting. ONR, of course, charges NNB Genco for all the work it carries out to regulate its activities.
ONR says it has taken the decision to suspend the production of future inspection reports until a Final Investment Decision is made. It has also suspended attendance at the local liaison committee – the Cannington Forum. These suspensions are most likely because NNB Genco no longer has the budget to pay for them, so the consortium will have asked ONR to stop visiting the site to do inspections and stop attending the forum because it can’t afford to pay.
In retaliation ONR says it is “monitoring the impact of the budget constraint upon NNB Genco’s competency and capability”. In other words NNB Genco had better watch out or it will lose its status as an organisation competent and capable of holding a nuclear license.
ONR says its inspectors “continue to engage with the programme of design and safety case activities” related to the start of nuclear safety related construction. Its August newsletter said that further submissions are expected in September this year and the Pre Construction Safety Case related to nuclear island construction was ready for ONR to begin initial engagement at the end of July this year. (4)
So while some desk work appears to be continuing all major work on-site appears to have stopped and NNB Genco is so uncertain that the final investment decision will be positive it has asked ONR to stop as much work as possible to save money – even to the point of threatening its own status as a nuclear capable organisation. The Click Green website says:
“Despite recently publishing a list of preferred suppliers for the £24 billion project, the French firm were in behind-the-scenes talks with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), during which they informed them of their decision to mothball the site.”

It looks as though it may be all over for Hinkley Point C bar the shouting”.

(1) Gloucestershire Echo 2nd April 2015 http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/400-jobs-lost-Barnwood-based-EDF-stops-site-work/story-26271600-detail/story.html
(2) Click Green 20th Aug 2015 http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/126381-exclusive-edf-mothballs-planned-hinkley-c-nuclear-power-site.html
(3) Professional Engineering 20th Aug 2015 http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2015/08/construction-halted-at-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project-site.html
(4) See page 7 ONR Regulation Matters August 2015 http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/2015/regulation-matters-issue-1.pdf

Can Quantum Physics Make Nuclear Waste Disappear?

Can Quantam Physics make nuclear waste disappear?
Can Quantum Physics make nuclear waste disappear?

Can Quantum Pyhsics make nuclear waste disappear?  Peter Smith a former BNFL employee has brought the Latest BBC 4, Jim Al-khalili documentary to our attention.  Peter says of the documentary : “Quantum physics, told us that latest particle physics theory indicates reality does not exist!  It’s only there when we look. Ah I thought, herein lies the answer to the previous programme on Sellafield. The nuclear industry want us to believe that nuclear waste is not dangerous because it’s not really there. Perhaps some in Westminster & the nuclear industry are suffering from QDS (quantum delirium syndrome). Just pouring a little light on the dark side”.

Brilliant!

Maybe taking the quantum physics theory to heart the BBC chose to ignore a deluge of complaints on Jim Al-khalili’s previous ‘documentary’ Britains Nuclear Secrets: Inside Sellafield” 

Because of the number of complaints The BBC have sent a generic reply to everyone saying:
” As an authored programme, it didn’t feel inappropriate at the end of the programme for Professor Jim Al-Khalili as a Nuclear Physicist and expert to express his personal views on nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste. Just as many who viewed the programme at home will have their own opinion too.”

This reply would only have credibility if the BBC was to screen another programme allowing  a presenter with a dissenting view
to “express his personal views on nuclear power”

Are BBC documentary makers a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry? It certainly looks that way!  Come on BBC and do your job of genuine reporting on what is the most important issue in the UK – the health of our water, our air, our land, our rivers our sea and how on earth we are going to keep hot nuclear wastes isolated from the biosphere into eternity.

23rd to 25th August Wylfa Twinning Camp

Wylfa-Fukushima  23rd -25th August 2015
Wylfa-Fukushima
23rd -25th August 2015
Wylfa -Fukushima August 23-25th Events
Wylfa -Fukushima August 23-25th Events
Naoto Kan
Naoto Kan

On 23 to 25 August, at a camp near the Tregele and Cemaes, the location of
WYLFA power station, guests from Japan, who have lived through the
Fukushima disaster, will warn the people of North Wales and the pro-nuclear
authorities not to go ahead with the planned huge 3 GigaBite reactor WYLFA
B. There are countless unknowns that can lead to a nuclear catastrophe and
any safety is a completely unrealistic idea in connection with any nuclear
devices . Speakers from the campaign against Hinkley point, the nuclear
powerstation in Sumerset, and representatives from Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth will inform us about their progress.
The existing power station at Wylfa has been shut down many times because
of faults and leaks of radiation into the environment and such events have
always been kept quiet. As there is nowhere to put the waste, the coast of
Anglesey and every other nuclear site is prone to be irradiated over time,
even if there is no official reported accident.
The former Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Naoto Kan, has visited Wylfa in
February of this year and has appealed to the authorities: ‘Don’t go ahead
with it!’ The event at the camp will be the official twinning of the
people of Fukushima and those of Anglesey to strengthen the movements
against the destructive nuclear power, which have been developed to feed
the weapons, which have been dropped on the people of Japan and are still
developed to destroy the world many times over.

Please stand with us in solidarity to rid the world of the nuclear madness!

Nuclear Camps for 4000 workers – Letter in the Whitehaven News

Nick Ford, Photographer has had the following letter published in the Whitehaven News August 20th.  He makes some excellent points …..

Sir- With reference to the letter under SPORTS CENTRE (The Whitehaven News
August 13th) entitled First Housing, and Now This,

To continue the discussion; it would seem that the “camps” will be “proper
houses” to be given over to housing associations after the NUGEN New Build,
3 new reactors have been finished. Now, the numbers employed by the Project
at peak is supposed to be around 6,000 according to NUGEN scaling down to
about 900-1000. So what happens to the unneeded 5,000 or so, if they are
locally employed then you have a 5.000 jump in unemployment or if brought in
workers, they will leave the area, but whichever way it works we have the
boom & bust syndrome again as there is no alternative employment to absorb
the surplus workers, businesses will then run down as most are dependent on
the Nuclear industry (a one horse town). As to the much vaunted 21,000 jobs,
even in their own PR documentation it is 21,000 UK jobs not just Cumbrian
jobs. The UK bit has been conveniently dropped in the press and other output
from NUGEN to give a misleading impression. Where did the 21,000 number come
from? No-one seems to know, it would seem to have been plucked out of the
air as at one time it was 9,300 then 14,000.

Apart from Copeland being the nuclear rubbish dump for the world they now
want the build 3 new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors next to the site. These
are the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plants of which there is not one in
operation anywhere in the world and therefore untested, The Americans have
reservations about the AP1000 with constant design changes being made. Of
the sites building the AP1000 (4 in America & 4 in China) all are 2 or more
years behind schedule and have rising costs and construction-design
problems.

So first, a business is not altruistic as the first duty of a company board
is to the company and the company to its investors (shareholders) the public
come a poor third and I cannot see any organisation building substantial
housing on the scale that NUGEN are talking about (up to 4,000 in three
areas) and then just giving them away or selling them cheaply for social
housing which is implied in their PR exercise and stated by several local
figures.

But this then begs the question, if they are looking to employ locally and
the Borough Council and Mayor are stating that they will insist on locals
being employed why do NUGEN need to build 4,000 houses as employing locally
will mean those employed already live in houses here?

NUGEN will bring in its own labour force, employ Sellafield workers being
released as reprocessing begins to tail down so no real benefits to Copeland
or Cumbria there, also most of the plant will be prefabricated and shipped
in so again work going outside Cumbria.

So we now come to the Extreme Sports Centre outside Cleator Moor another
great idea from RNEC; let’s look at the roads as the letter writer rightly
points out these is not suitable for large scale traffic, leading to
congestion problems.

Next and basically any investor looking to maximise a return on the
investment of £26 million will want to locate the centre near an area
already consisting of a large number of visitors for climbing etc. with good
road links and this would be towards Keswick and the southern lakes not the
remote and not easy to reach Cleator Moor there would not be enough custom
in the Cleator/Cleator Moor area.

So what benefit to the local town?-none! Apart from being outside the town,
so no-one will need to pass through Cleator Moor, the Sports Centre will
also have hotel and shops (akin to Centre Parcs). The development includes
hotel & shops (captive audience, no need to go into Cleator Moor). It will
be a case of visitors saying “to the centre and away back to the lakes.”
That will do no good for trade in Cleator/Cleator Moor. The only interest
will be in the business and the money it will make, not the local town.
Staffing will be another issue as it usually pays low wages due to the
ability to exploit the fact there is little other industry or work due to
the strangulation of businesses by the overarching Nuclear Industry At this
point I see no real benefit to Cleator Moor/Cleator.

Nick Ford