10th August – ‘Moorcide’ Walk- Have a look -See


Stop Moorcide Walk : August 10th 2014
Stop Moorcide Walk : August 10th 2014


The walk will take around 2 hours, approximately 5 miles For those who do not want to do the whole walk we will be returning to The Royal Oak Beckermet to have a bite to eat and discuss what we have seen.

From the Lake District National Park towards the coast, you can look down across the lowland area and your eyes meet the obscene atomic carbuncle called Sellafield.  The industry with funding from our nuclear obsessed government want to add at least two vast new reactors and the loading station for tens of thousands of radioactive waste packages for a vast underground nuclear dump.

Recent press coverage suggests that Moorside is a fait accompli. This is what the industry and our nuclear fanatical government would dearly like people to believe in order to stop opposition.

Opposition is however the only sane option to new build adjacent to Sellafield.

We are inviting groups such as the National Trust, Friends of the Lake District, Cumbria WildlifeTrust and the Lake District National Park Authority, groups who have the interests of the countryside at heart to join members of the public on a walk taking in part of the proposed site

The walk will take place on 10th August – meet at the Royal Oak at 10am and will be approximately 5 miles starting from the village of Beckermet

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has recklessly given  Toshiba the option to purchase a 6km square parcel of West Cumbria, beautiful green fields and hedgerows adjacent to Sellafield and running alongside the River Ehen. This huge parcel of wildlife diverse farm land stretches towards Calder Bridge, Beckerment and Braystones

To consider any new build at all adjacent to Sellafield’s high level waste tanks is an act of recklessness. Bizzarely the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is actively encouraging new build even while the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, local politicians and nuclear campaigners have for the past decade repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of the High Level Waste tanks upon which the physical safety of the whole of Cumbria and its international neighbours depends.

The NDA should do the job it was set up to do – namely look after the existing stockpile of nuclear waste rather than actively encouraging new Toshiba’s proposed three new reactors are AP1000s. These are the next generation of the same old uranium burning technology. The difference is that these reactors burn the uranium for longer and harder. The resulting radioactive wastes are much hotter and have to be cooled for decades longer. The NDA have told Radiation Free Lakeland that the fresh water resource for cooling is “a matter for the operators.” Currently Sellafield uses over 4 million gallons of water daily abstracted from Wastwater, the River Ehen, the River Calder and boreholes in the area.

The elephant in the room is of course Toshiba’s track record in nuclear safety. Toshiba supplied the steam generator, architecture and reactor for Fukushima reactors numbers 3 and 5 Hitachi (merged with Toshiba) supplied the reactor, steam generator and architecture for Fukushima reactor no 4.

Moorside is the last nuclear straw that will break far more than Cumbria’s back unless we resist now.

Please join us on 10th August 10am at Beckermet to have a walk around the proposed site- we will meet at the Royal Oak.

Wainwright famously called Calder Hall a “grotesque carbuncle”  that atomic carbuncle is set to grow like a malignant cancer.

We can stop it. We MUST STOP IT


For those on Facebook 


And More Info:

Nuclear Reactor Maps – Fukushima – Daiichi



Hitachi, Toshiba and GE Merge Nuclear Operations





Escalating cost of ‘clean up’



Ground Hog Day – High Level Waste



Too Hot to Handle – AP1000s High Burn Up Fuel


Nuclear is: Monument to Human Stupidity


Letter today in the Daily Post – urging Welsh MP Albert Owen to:

“Please desist from saying that the answer to this problem of nuclear waste is to send it to Lakeland”.


Full letter here:

Open Letter to Albert Owen MP

Being a resident of Cumberland I strongly object to your statement that the

country’s nuclear waste should be sent to us here. Nuclear power is

completely irresponsible, producing so much highly dangerous waste, and

costing the tax-payer phenomenal amounts of cash for generations. I can

personally attest to the disgusting state of the area, the contaminated

land and buildings, burgeoning waste storage facilities, decaying and

neglected structures containing radio-active spent fuel in water open to

wildlife, the vast number of (expensive) people working to clean up the

mess, which will never be achieved, as in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Every

nuclear power station is a monument to human stupidity and

short-sightedness, at best a deadly nuclear waste factory storing up

problems for our children and grandchildren, at worst a catastrophe waiting

to happen.


Nuclear power is an expensive short-term fix for politicians who refuse to

see that the problem is not a shortage of power but an uncontrolled

increase in the population. This they are encouraging in the pursuit of

eternal ‘growth’, at the expense of everything that is really worthwhile in

our lives.


Please desist from saying that the answer to this problem of nuclear waste

is to send it to Lakeland. Why don’t they send it to the south-east if

it’s safe? That’s where most of the power goes. We do not want the most

beautiful part of England despoiled any more than it has been already.


Please find out *all *the facts before you make suggestions!



Ben from Cumberland


Paddington’s Peru and the Nukiller Plan


A film about Paddington’s Peru – the real andean bears, the ice cap and the people

about to be shafted by the UK’s nuclear fanaticism.


There is NO uranium mining or Nuclear Reactors in Peru – this is set to

change with the area of the worlds most important ice cap in the High

Andes, Quelccaya, being aggressively eyed up for uranium mining.


Chief Executive of Macusani Yellowcake Peter Hooper in conversation..


Peter Hooper: Peru has no uranium mining and they have one medical

reactor. That’s it. The uranium here was found by Margaret Thatcher, you

know that of course.


James West: I didn’t know that.


Peter Hooper: She persuaded the British Geological Survey to fly Peru and

half of Chile for airborne geophysics including radiometrics in 1980 and

‘81, really as a thank you for the Falklands.

Out of that came hundreds

of airborne searches and one of the biggest, it’s right where

we are. They created the IPEN, Institute Proven Energy Nuclear at the same

time and IPEN, producing uranium in those days before Chernobyl went sky

high and they did some quite a lot of exploration work including some

added work. So that’s the basis of where we started- uranium price crash

that changed the mining law in ‘91 which meant that IPEN had to stop

paying the government for all these properties there then they change the

rules. Uranium to this day is treated as a base metal – so no

special rules.


James West: So then who would be the ultimate client with that — implied

that in the UK would probably be the first off taker.






Truth About Clean Beaches

Truth About Clean Beaches - NW Evening Mail July 5th 2014
Truth About Clean Beaches – NW Evening Mail July 5th 2014
Radioactive Sand in-between toes?
Radioactive Sand in-between toes?


Letter in the North West Evening Mail…..


Holiday time! Beach towels, buckets and spades and children are being gathered up to take along to the beach.

Which beach?

There is loads of choice in Cumbria, which boasts some of the most beautiful coastlines in the UK.

Maybe one of the award-winning beaches like St Bees?  St Bees has a Good Beach flag from the Marine Conservation Society and a Seaside Award flag from Keep Britain Tidy.

Before packing the sandwiches though, it is worth considering that while these awards consider “rigorous water quality tests” they do not consider radioactive pollution as a criteria.

St Bees beach, like many others in West Cumbria, has seen a dramatic increase in radioactive particle finds including plutonium.  The awards encourage children to spend hours playing on the beaches and making sandcastles on beaches known to be contaminated.

Isn’t it about time that these awards included radioactive pollution as a criteria?

Marianne Birkby

Radiation Free Lakeland

A serious lack of joined up thinking at DECC…

Frack Off …Why the Disconnect between Fracking and Nuclear Policy? Is it to underplay governments most favourite nastiest industry?

Cumbria Trust

Cumbria Trust was pleased to read today’s long overdue announcement from DECC that national parks and AONBs will be protected from fracking.  These areas are the most treasured parts of the British landscape and are rightly subject to some of the strictest planning rules.  This is particularly relevant to Cumbria which includes Britain’s premier national park, The Lake District and the Solway Coast AONB.

However, there is a clear lack of joined-up thinking in government.  Just last week, the same government department, DECC, brought out a new White Paper on Geological Disposal of nuclear waste.  This White Paper should have contained the same exclusion of national parks and AONBs, along with other environmentally sensitive areas, but they neglected to include this.

The exploration and construction phases for a GDF the size of Carlisle would be significantly more damaging and destructive than a fracking operation, so national parks and AONBs must…

View original post 248 more words

Welsh MP says Cumbria should be the Nuclear Sacrifice Zone

People against Wylfa B
People against Wylfa B


The following is a message from colleagues in Wales at People against Wylfa B

A Welsh MP, Albert Owen has been pushing for Cumbria to be the nuclear sacrifice zone.

Please write, phone, tweet, email and let this  MP for Wales, Albert Owen know

that Cumbria is not willing to be the nuclear sacrifice zone . Lets show

solidarity with Wales, the only reason there is a ruthless push for

“geological disposal” here in Cumbria’s complex and leaky geology is to

facilitate insane new nuclear build in Wales and elsewhere.  


“Dear friends in Cumbria,

There is a story in today’s Daily Post, the paper which has the widest

circulation in Anglesey, about the government’s announcement yesterday

regarding bribing communities to accept a geological nuclear waste

repository. Our bright spark of a Labour MP for Ynys Môn, Albert Owen who

is rabidly pro Wylfa B, is quoted in the story saying the dump should be in

Cumbria because you have the necessary “skills set” there and it is his

understanding that the geology is suitable. You can view the story in the

Daily Post online.

Mr Owen’s e-mail is owena@parliament.uk. I’m sure quite a number of you

would like to contact Mr.Owen to challenge him on his outlandish assumption

regarding geology.


We in PAWB have strong links with the NFLA and Sean Morris, and the Stop

Hinkley gang. We have been down to two of their rallies in Somerset and

they have been up to one of ours in Llangefni. I think it is about time

that we got to know you in Cumbria better so that we can co-ordinate

campaigning and share ideas.


I look forward to hearing from you.


Best wishes,

Dyan Morgan

Co-ordinator PAWB, Pobl Atal Wylfa/ People against Wylfa B”


more info:

MP Albert Owen was given a free trip by GEHitachi to Japan at the end of June alongside Rhun

ap Iorwerth the Plaid Cymru Assembly member for Ynys Môn. They were over there for 5 days to cement the

relationship with GEHitachi and marvel at the wonders of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor. Even worse than

that was the fact that the Leader and two senior officers from Ynys Môn County

Council and two senior civil servants from the Welsh Government also went on the trip at the expense of the


CoRWM will be holding a public meeting on September 4 here in Ynys Môn. This will be the same sort of

meeting that was held in Workington.  We hope CoRWM will be given a good Welsh welcome and reminded that

a geological dump is unethical and unsafe ANYWHERE!

The first step to genuinely containing nuclear waste is to stop making any more.


Sellafield Study “Hides Cancer Increases”

Still Fighting for Gemma
Still Fighting for Gemma – a film was made of this true story.. the only known cause of childhood leukemia is….. man made radiation.


Sellafield Study “Hides Cancer Increases”


It seems the study commissioned by our pro-nuclear government is not all

it cracks up to be.


The study funded by the Department of Health and published by the British

Journal of Cancer found no difference in cancer incidence from 1991 -2006

between those living near Sellafield (and Dounreay) and the larger

population. The report magnanimously acknowledges that there was

increased incidence of leukaemia before 1991 but infers that Sellafield

has since cleaned up its act (despite its continuing crash programme of

reprocessing) to such an extent that the Sellafield area is now entirely

safe for young families.


The reassuring report has been dealt a blow by criticism from leading scientists.


Dr Ian Fairlie is a leading independent scientist and consultant on

radioactivity in the environment. He has collaborated with leading German

scientist Dr Korblein to analyse the new

report. Dr Fairlie comments that the report commissioned by the

Department of Health and reassuring those living near Sellafield and

Dounreay, should never have been published. He goes on to say it is

“misleading” as “over all cancers and all years, the observed cancer

increases in fact were highly statistically significant”




More Information on Dr Ian Fairlie’s website


The full text is here:


Comments on another BJC article

Posted on July 25, 2014

In 2013, the British Journal of Cancer published an article (Bithell et

al, 2013) (for references see below) purporting to show there were no

leukemia increases in young children near UK nuclear power plants (NPPs).

I published a post criticising this article stating that it should not

have been published. The BJC has now printed a similar article (Bunch et

al, 2014) which, if anything, is even worse than the 2013 one. The new

article also should never have been published.


The new report concludes, first, that children, teenagers and young adults

currently living close to Sellafield and Dounreay are not at an increased

risk of developing cancer. Second, it concludes there is no evidence of

any increased cancer risk later in life among those resident in these

areas at birth.


However a close reading of the actual data in the reportís table 3 in fact

reveals statistically significant cancer increases measured across all

years and ages. The data layout in their table 3 carefully hides these

increases so the data are more clearly laid out below (for Seascale ward),

together with p values kindly added by Dr Alfred Kˆrblein.


The very low p values in Seascale ward show that the cancer increases

there are statistically significant, ie are not due to chance. It is

notable that these increases and their accompanying p values are NOT

discussed in the new report.


Total leukaemias (0-24 y)


Obs       Exp       SIR       P value*            RR       P value**

study region       6          0.91      6.59      0.0004

control region     68         76.33    0.89      0.8442   7.40      0.0002

All malignancies (0-24 y)


Obs       Exp       SIR       P value*            RR       P value**

study region       12         3.66      3.28      0.0004

control region     321       322.27   1.00      0.5356   3.29      0.0005

Obs= observed, Exp= expected, SIR= standardised incidence ratio, RR=

relative risk


*one-sided P value (Poisson test), **one-sided P value (Binomial test)

both calculated by Dr Alfred Kˆrblein


So, at Seascale, the leukemia risk is 7.4-times greater than the control

area (RR=7.4, P=0.0002), and for all malignancies, the risk is 3.3 times

greater than the control area (RR= 3.3, P=0.0005).


The new article should therefore have reported that statistically

significant cancer increases occurred across all ages and cancers in

Seascale, about 4 km from Sellafield. Instead, the printed conclusions

refrain from this and make misleading inferences in selected analyses

which appear to show the opposite. This is poor science.


Let’s unpack that first conclusion that children, teenagers and young

adults currently living near Sellafield are not at an increased risk of

developing cancer. This is presumably based on the most recent data

(1991-2006) which show 1 observed case (0-14 yr olds) and 1 observed case

(15-24 yr olds). In fact, these are increases over the expected numbers,

but you can’t say anything definite one way or the other as the numbers

are far too small for meaningful conclusions. Also these data are now

eight years old: can we really say that young people currently living near

Sellafield are not running risks?


Let’s unpack the second conclusion that ìthere is no evidence of any

increased cancer risk later in life among those resident in these areas at

birthî. This is presumably based on the data for those aged 15-24, but in

fact, these again show actual increases (Observed 4, Expected 1.43 for all

cases). Again you canít be definite from such small numbers as the

increases are still not statistically significant, but to say there was no

increased risk when in fact the numbers show the opposite is perverse and


Given the lack of statistical power in their chosen analyses and given the

fact that increases were actually found, the report should not have

concluded that people were not at risk. Instead it should have reported

the cancer increases but added that the results of its chosen analyses

were not statistically significant as they were underpowered. However, it

should also have added that, over all cancers and all years, the observed

cancer increases in fact were highly statistically significant.


There is a second major flaw in this study. Leukemia incidences vary a

great deal depending on age at detection. Grouping babies and infants

with other ages may mask increases among them, as any increase could be

diluted by the numbers at older ages. This problem is well known and itís

for this reason that almost all studies in this area have focussed on

under 5 year olds. This study should have done the same: it didn’t.


Another problem is that the leukemia data from 1963 to 1990 at Seascale

only shows 5 cases. But the famous study by Gardner et al (1990) revealed

10 such cases. Where have the other 5 cases gone? Were they all detected

before 1963?


Fourth, the study refrains from discussing the huge amount of evidence

world-wide on childhood leukemias near NPPs as discussed by myself

(Fairlie, 2013) and many others. It hardly mentions the important German

KiKK study (Kaatsch et al, 2008) and ignores the meta-analysis of four

European studies by Korblein and Fairlie (2012) which conclusively showed

increased leukemia risks among under fives, living within five km of

almost all NPPs in France, Germany, Switzerland and the UK.


In sum, like the similar study of leukemias the BJC published in 2013,

this study should also not have been published as it is misleading and

contains no scientifically useful information.


(PS This post concentrates on Sellafield but similar considerations and

criticisms apply to the Dounreay data.)


I wish to thank Dr Korblein for his invaluable help in writing this post.




Bithell JF, M F G Murphy, C A Stiller, E Toumpakari, T Vincent and R

Wakeford. (2013) Leukaemia in young children in the vicinity of British

nuclear power plants: a caseñcontrol study. Br J Cancer. advance online

publication, September 12, 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.560.


Bunch KJ, T J Vincent1, R J Black, M S Pearce, R J Q McNally, P A

McKinney, L Parker, A W Craft and M F G Murphy (2014) Updated

investigations of cancer excesses in individuals born or resident in the

vicinity of Sellafield and Dounreay. British Journal of Cancer (2014),

1ñ10 | doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.357


Fairlie I (2013) A hypothesis to explain childhood cancers near nuclear

power plants. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 133 (2014) 10e17


Gardner MJ, Snee MP; Hall AJ; Powell CA; Downes S; Terrell JD (1990)

Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people

near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. BMJ. 1990;300:423ñ429.


Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M. (2008)

Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power

plants. Int J Cancer; 122: 721-726.


Korblein A and Fairlie I (2012) French Geocap study confirms increased

leukemia risks in young children near nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer

131: 2970ñ2971.



Comments on another BJC article


Nothing to See Here! Govt Study on Sellafield Cancers

Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant - Cancer Factory
Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant – Cancer Factory

Surprise surprise!  The UK government is super keen to plonk another cancer factory, the “biggest in Europe”,  adjacent to Sellafield and Hey Presto as if by magic, Sellafield is unveiled in its brand new shade of whiter than white.

The headline: “No increased risk of cancer for children living near Sellafield or Dounreay”.

The study funded by the Department of Health  found no difference in cancer incidence from 1991 -2006.  The report magnanimously acknowledges that there was increased incidence of leukaemia before 1991 but infers that Sellafield has cleaned up its act (despite its crash programme of reprocessing) to such an extent that all is now tickety boo.

And as if this wasn’t enough, the ‘Good News’ message is reinforced by Cancer Research UK (a charity with government ties) “This study is reassuring for anyone who happens to be living near a power plant” says Dr Julie Sharp, Cancer Research UK.




Our friends in the rest of Europe who are abandoning nuclear at a rate of knots because of  health, environmental and financial crash risks can only look on in bewilderment at the UK  governments continued and it has to be said, accelerating nuclear fanaticism.




UK Nuclear Reprocessing Plant Turns 50

Reprocessing at Sellafield turns 50. Fifty years worth of insanely dangerous high level liquid wastes in tanks that the Office for Nuclear Regulation say are not fit for purpose. Why then is more waste arriving at Sellafield to be reprocessed adding to the toxic brew? There is no reason for this to happen apart from habit and an insane nuclear culture. This is what Sellafield says about its clapped out old reprocessing plant which in a sane world should never have begun operations ““Imagine a car from 1964 still running on the roads today and not just being brought out for exhibitions or displays but actually doing hard miles, every month, come what may. That’s what our Magnox Reprocessing Plant does and we are extremely proud of it.”. This is not a beautiful vintage car it is a bomb making machine.

Assystem Energy & Infrastructure

UK nuclear reprocessing plant turns 50

Magnox Reprocessing Plant. Copyright: Sellafield
Magnox Reprocessing Plant. Copyright: Sellafield

The UK’s first commercial nuclear reprocessing facility celebrated its 50th birthday yesterday.

The Magnox Reprocessing plant at Sellafield reprocesses spent fuel from nuclear power stations and recycles it to make fresh fuel.

More than 52,000 tonnes of fuel have been reprocessed in the facility since operations began in 1964, according to operator Sellafield Ltd, which currently employs more than 400 people.

The facility during construction. Copyright: Sellafield

Mark Jackson, the current Head of the Magnox Operating Unit said: “The longevity of the plant and its safety record are a real success for not only the nuclear industry but industry as a whole.

“Imagine a car from 1964 still running on the roads today and not just being brought out for exhibitions or displays but actually doing hard miles, every month, come what may. That’s what our Magnox Reprocessing Plant does and we are extremely proud of…

View original post 9 more words

Nuclear: It is Time to Stop!

Wonder why Greenpeace UK is not hanging banners from the top of Heysham Dungeness..etc?   These nukiller plants are clapped out but nevertheless plan to continue further into dangerous old age putting us all at risk. Putting Europe at risk for the sake of a tiny percentage of the UKs total electricity use!

Mining Awareness +

Greenpeace Action: Don’t Place Europe in Danger! March 18, 2014

(Video has some French, German, and English)

Nuclear: It is Time to Stop

(While the French language original, by Greenpeace.fr, is entitled Nuclear Europe: It is Time to Stop, the situation in the USA is similar. And, so we have added additional Greenpeace and other info about the USA at the bottom. Also, Switzerland is included, even though it is not EU).

English translation based on Greenpeace.fr report:
This 18th of March, 60 activists, from all over Europe, but also from Turkey, and Australia, occupied the dome and roof of the reactor pool number 1 at the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant in France. Fessenheim is the oldest nuclear power plant in France and one of the oldest Europeans reactors: it will be 37 years old in two weeks.

This action had as objective to denounce the risk that Nuclear France…

View original post 2,087 more words