WELL DONE to Eddie Martin ! Cumbria Trust is ” not antinuclear” but it is opposed to the government’s “improved” process To dump democracy along with high level nuclear waste under Cumbria. Cumbria Trust and Eddie are yet to make the connection that the dump is a symptom of the entrenched disease called nuclear power.
The New Group. Cumbria Trust
A new group has been set up to oppose the nuclear dump.
Fronted by former County Council Leader Eddie Martin and John Wilson a solicitor.
Give them support ..we are all in this together whether you are pro or anti nuclear!
Eddie Martin spoke on Radio Cumbria today..he did brilliantly apart from support for new build at Sellafield ..Cumbria Trust is still to make the connection that geological dumping is but a symptom of the nasty entrenched disease called nuclear power. The disease needs to be stopped and contained rather than enabling the disease to spread further with new build at Sellafield and elsewhere.
Radiation Free Lakeland FULLY support Cumbria Trust’s aims of opposing the dump in Cumbria but we DO NOT SUPPORT the neutral/pronuke stance which allows for new build and for the dump to be imposed elsewhere.
Eddie Martin’s excellent (apart from new build ..pah!!) radio interview can be heard here:
Cumbria Trust’s Aims and Objectives…
Aims & Objectives
To campaign against a Geological Disposal Facility (“GDF”) for nuclear waste being located in the County of Cumbria.
[This being primarily on the grounds (amongst others) that the geology of Cumbria is unsafe and unsuitable for a GDF based upon internationally recognised guidelines and that the geology of other areas of the United Kingdom (UK) is safer and more suitable for a GDF than anywhere in Cumbria.]
For the public benefit and interest, to campaign for an independent, national (UK) geological survey to be conducted by the UK government in the national interest so as to establish the areas of the United Kingdom which are most geologically suitable and safe for a GDF to be constructed/located. In other words to put geology and safety first instead of so called “voluntarism”.
To campaign for safer, long term storage of nuclear waste (in all its forms) which is:
located from time to time at Sellafield in the County of Cumbria (“SL”); and
located from time to time at other licensed nuclear sites in the UK.
[Including addressing the concerns expressed by the National Audit Office in 2012 with regard to operations at Sellafield.]
To campaign, for monies now being spent, and to be spent in the future, in the decommissioning of SL to be spent so as to benefit the County of Cumbria and more specifically the communities of the Allerdale and Copeland.
[Taking into account that such regions are acting in the national interest in currently hosting the majority of the United Kingdom’s nuclear waste but still have significant poverty, deprivation and unemployment.]
Campaign to protect the Lake District National Park, Solway Area of Outstanding National Beauty and other environmentally sensitive sites (including without limitation Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and also historic sites in the County of Cumbria.
[Specifically protect from any GDF related development or impact therefrom so as to preserve such areas and the sites for the public benefit and/or the Nation.]
To respond to any local or national government consultations with regard to nuclear waste (specifically without limitation the storage and disposal thereof) or relating to a GDF, including without limitation the process known as Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (“MRWS”) and also to educate members of the public with regard thereto and to assist them in responding themselves.
To campaign for the democratically taken decisions of all Cumbrian councils or other elected (or partially elected) public bodies in Cumbria to be relevant and fundamental to the MRWS process and also fundamental to any decisions and/or rights (legal or otherwise) relating howsoever to the MRWS process (or anything similar or analogous thereto) including participation and withdrawal therefrom.
To specifically campaign for the agreement of Cumbria County Council being an essential prerequisite, in addition to the agreement of any other council in Cumbria, with regard to any step or process or decision relating howsoever to MRWS (or anything analogous thereto); such agreement being in the public benefit and interest taking into account: –
That Cumbria County Council is the waste disposal authority for the County of Cumbria;
The potential for any GDF to affect the whole of the County of Cumbria, whether directly or indirectly, irrespective as to where precisely in Cumbria it may be located;
Cumbria County Council has the resources and expertise needed to make any such decisions relating to waste (including nuclear waste) in the public interest, including without limitation qualified and expert personnel but also the greater financial resources (that is greater than other councils in Cumbria) to obtain independent and objective advice by instructing external experts.
To campaign for the economy of West Cumbria (specifically the areas of Copeland and Allerdale) to be further diversified for the public benefit, as much as practicable and specifically, without prejudice to the foregoing, in economic sectors other than nuclear related, bearing in mind West Cumbria’s current economic reliance on SL and that SL is in the process of being decommissioned.
To challenge legally the policy outcomes and decisions of central government and/or its departments and/or local authorities with regard to the storage, disposal and/or management of nuclear waste.
The BBC is after all an arm of government – supposedly at arms length but how at arms length is it really? Certainly as far as the government’s nuclear agenda is concerned the BBC is keen to keep to the script at every opportunity. The bland announcement that Hinkley has been given the go ahead by government was not accompanied by any super dooper scary computer graphics showing where the uranium is going to come from, where it will be enriched (Preston, Lancashire or Capenhurst, Cheshire), or how the reactors will burn the uranium so hard that the waste will be much more dangerous, no graphics showing where the waste will be stored or where it will be buried. No question’s asked. No galvanising of public opinion to question this as anything other than a done deal. Altogether an easy ride for nuclear from the BBC to damp down any resistance and at all costs to keep the horses from being scared and bolting away from the nuclear stable. RESIST!
Here is a letter from Dr Paul Dorfman to the BBC objecting to the pronuclear bias in last Thursday’s Radio 4 Nuclear Waste: Inside Science programme.
Your guest discussant on nuclear waste stated that a very great new-build nuclear in
the UK would only increase the volume of our rad-waste burden by 10%. Unfortunately
this statement is utterly disingenous, in that the key to nuclear waste is the
actual toxicity of the radiation – not the volume. The waste volume will indeed be
smaller, but the actual toxicity and heat of the waste will increase our waste
burden by 3-5 times. One of the reasons for this will be the use of essentially
experimental ‘high burn-up’ fuel.
Following the liberalisation of the EU energy market, it was realized that a
decrease in nuclear costs could be achieved if reactor power could be optimized by
using more uranium as reactor fuel and keeping the fuel rods in longer. This means
that generation III reactor ‘high burn-up’ spent fuel will be significantly more
radioactive than conventional spent fuel. Five years after discharge, each square
metre of spent fuel in the proposed EPR cooling ponds may generate up to 17 kW of
heat compared with 11 kW from more conventional spent fuel pool. The high density of
the AP1000 spent fuel racks implies that between 24 and 36 kW of heat may need to be
removed from each square metre. Safety could depend on the effective and continuous
removal of the significant thermal power of high burn-up spent fuel, potentially
requiring additional pumps, back-up electricity supplies and back-up water supplies:
all systems potentially vulnerable to mechanical failure or deliberate disruption.
It is also likely that densely packed high burn-up spent fuel may require additional
neutron absorbers, and greater radiation shielding during encapsulation and storage.
Dr Paul Dorfman
UCL Energy Institute
University College London
14 Upper Woburn Place
Founder, Nuclear Consulting Group (NCG)
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Nuclear Policy Research Fellow
Please add your opposition to BBC Bias on Nuclear Waste and Nuclear New Build
The program can be heard here:
None of the actual issues around the waste are explored and
there is no dissenting voice. The prog website gives a link to EDF.
It also gives a link for emails.
BBC radio 4 feedback -should receive
the same complaints, and then there is a chance that some “balance” can
be restored to the coverage.. email@example.com
Petition to Stop Hinkley…
We call upon David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Edward Davey, to stop the construction of Hinkley C Nuclear Power Station: Nuclear Power is dangerous and uneconomical. We can never predict damage to the reactor as a result of unstable weather conditions or seismic activity. The proposed Hinkley C site is on the Bristol Channel which experiences high tidal fluctuations. It is also within the vicinity of a fault line that had an earthquake 9 years ago. It could happen again.
PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE!!!!!!
Stop Hinkley ..let’s grow this BIG! https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/End_Nuclear_Insanity_NOW_Ban_Construction_of_Hinkley_C_Nuclear_Power_Station/?dyWrEab&mobile=1
Former First Minister and WalesOnline columnist Rhodri Morgan muses over the deal struck for ‘first private sector nuclear power station’ – run by four nationalised industries
I could barely believe my ears when I heard the announcement this week of the new nuclear power station to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset, right opposite Cardiff Airport.
The BBC kept referring to it as Britain’s first-ever private sector nuclear power station.
What the report should have said was that it was to be built by a consortium of four nationalised industries, two French and two Chinese.
Three of the four are 100% state-owned and one is 85%. Overseas nationalised industries are not in the private sector.
In fact I doubt if any private sector company could ever build and operate a nuclear power station now, because they would never be able to get insurance cover.
When the last British…
View original post 365 more words
For quite some time I have thought that Greenpeace, and especially Greenpeace UK has made some kind of deal with the powers that be to soft pedal on nuclear. Repeated requests for help to stop the nuclear juggernaught have been ignored or brushed off (see below), while Greenpeace campaigners have accused Radiation Free Lakeland of being “bombastic”. Oh for some nukiller bombast from Greenpeace! If they pulled their finger out and put some effort into campaigning against this the most extreme, vicious and nasty way of boiling a kettle ever invented then I for one would be so overjoyed I would eat my bombastic hat while doing cartwheels naked in front of Greenpeace’s wonderful(non existent) NO NUKILLER Banners unfurled from the top of Scafell, Blackpool Tower, Hinkley Point and of course Paddington’s Peru. There is no uranium mining in Peru – but as a direct result of Greenpeace and FoE’s soft pedalling and of course nuclear cheerleading from the likes of George Monbiot, Peru is set to become the biggest exporter of uranium in South America. The companies involved include Canadian – the same companies the UK would be buying uranium from for new “high burn” nukiller reactors. The worlds largest tropical ice cap is under threat – but that of course is a lost cause as far as Greenpeace are concerned. For goodness sake the only causes worth fighting are the lost causes.
Below some recent correspondence with Greenpeace..
Thanks for the email – actually this is something we have long opposed –
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/search/node/nuclear%20dumping%20uk for some of
the blogs. We are currently working on Fracking because we know that this is
an imminent threat but we do have campaigners who are opposing nuclear power
and the waste it produces – http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/
0800 269 065
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 15 October 2013 09:37
Subject: Form submission from: General Information
Submitted on Tuesday, 15 October, 2013 – 09:37
[184.108.40.206] Submitted values are:
First name: marianne
Brilliant work on fracking! Would the same apply to any drilling? for
example mining under Cumbria to dump hot nuclear reactor wastes?
Thousands of people in Cumbria are opposed to nuclear wastes under their
WOuld Greenpeace make a statement / galvanise action to oppose nuclear
dumping under Cumbria?
fracking is nasty but nukiller is at the very top of the polluting food
chain. At the start of the nukiller chain, the birthing of uranium fuel,is
Springfields in Preston. The River Ribble through Preston will be awash with
radioactive emissions and chemicals from the Springfields site should new
build go ahead.
Please help, please lead the way in opposing nukiller.
Oil and Gas is absolutely essential to nukiller, both Springfields and
Sellafield have their own dedicated fossil fuel plants to ensure security of
with all best wishes for the safe return of the activists… Petitions
signed and letters sent!
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
Bob Crow leader of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and a member of the General Council of the TUC. has called for a complete ban on nuclear power. Bob Crow is right and he deserves our sincere and heartfelt thanks for calling for a ban on nuclear, nothing less than a ban will do. Shame on Greenpeace and FoE UK for cow towing to the culture of nuclear acquiescence. Their “its too expensive” line is weak kneed beyond belief. Nuclear is not a new handbag. It is the most extreme, nasty, vicious form of boiling a kettle ever invented and the sooner a ban is brought about and the task of containing the waste safely is properly addressed (instead of ‘decommissioning’/Dispersal) the better!
Electrical Union of Australia Bans Members from Working in the Nuclear Industry
Sellafield Workers Campaign for a Future
Derailment in London “The fact that this wasn’t one of the nuclear trains that use that line at that time of night is a relief to everyone but that appears to have been pure luck”.
Nuclear Slavery – Yes Nuclear is “too expensive” …but Greenpeace and other NGOs in the UK seem to be focussing solely on the expense. This narrow field of view is just another form of propaganda. Nuclear is not a “too expensive” new handbag, it is an obscenity – an obscenity that includes slavery and genocide, ignored by the mainstream media especially in the UK.
Radiation, desperation and gangsters: Inside the hidden tragedy of Fukushima The Globe and Mail , 25 Oct 13 ANTONI SLODKOWSKI AND MARI SAITO IWAKI — Reuters , Oct. 25 2013 “…….The yakuza connection The complexity of Fukushima contracts and the shortage of workers have played into the hands of the yakuza, Japan’s organized crime syndicates, which have run labour rackets for generations.
Nearly 50 gangs with 1,050 members operate in Fukushima prefecture dominated by three major syndicates – Yamaguchi-gumi, Sumiyoshi-kai and Inagawa-kai, police say.
View original post 511 more words
Beautiful Fern Fossil found by a supporter of Radiation Free Lakeland on
the coast in the Whitehaven area. These fossils are from the Westphalian
stage, in the Carboniferous period and are around 300
million years old. The fossil fern bed is one of the best in the uk, and
there could be other exposures of it in west Cumbria. Looking on the
geological map, the rock where the fossils are covers a large area of West
Cumbria. We should be looking after and preserving them rather than
planning to smash them up in order to make a vast mine in order to dump nuclear
Todays Westmorland Gazette..
Opponents get signatures for minister letter
by Ellis Butcher
Local opponents to a potential underground nuclear waste repository in Cumbria canvassed for signatures at the weekend.
Ms Birkby said: “The overwhelming majority of people we spoke to were appalled at the Government coming back with this new plan, and even some of those who had been staunchly pro-nuclear signed the letter.”
“The consultation aims to give the few people on the Allerdale and Copeland Borough Council Executive the sole right to make the decision. Cumbrians have already said no repeatedly to becoming the nuclear dumping ground for existing and future radioactive waste taken out of reactor cores and buried under Cumbria s leaky geology.”
The Jokes On Us?
Please write to your MP asking them to sign the Early Day Motion calling for
No Public Subsidies for Nuclear
Email to Tim Farron MP
Please would you consider signing this important EDM
NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES AND THE COALITION AGREEMENT
Date tabled: 14.10.2013
Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
Early day motion 568 – NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES AND THE COALITION AGREEMENT
That this House recalls the Coalition Agreement said that new nuclear
power stations would be permitted ‘provided that they receive no public
subsidy’; believes that the present proposed deals guarantee a fixed
subsidy for 40 years at double the current cost of electricity; further
notes that any future cost escalation will be paid for from the public
purse as a subsidy; further notes that the current nuclear waste clean-up
costs being met by taxpayers add up to over £75 billion; further believes
that any deal done with Chinese financiers to support the building of
nuclear power plants will inevitably result in massive future liabilities
to British taxpayers; and calls on the Coalition to honour its own
agreement and cancel all subsidies.
with many thanks
Radiation Free Lakeland