Austria home of the nasty International Atomic Energy Agency now is 100% nuclear free with imports of nuclear power BANNED.
What do they know that they don’t want but are foisting on the rest of us?
On 1 January 2015, Austria’s “ban” on imports of nuclear power went into effect as planned. The event has gone as unreported in the English-speaking world as was the original announcement.
From Renew Economy….
“On Twitter this morning, Stephen Tindale asked me a good question – did Austria go ahead with its “ban” on imports of nuclear power? The Austrians are easily the fiercest opponents of nuclear in the EU. In 1978 – a year before Three Mile Island – they voted in a referendum to prevent the country’s first nuclear plant from being switched on; construction had been completed. And this month, Austria also filed suit with the EU against British plans to provide special financial incentives for a new nuclear plant at Hinkley.
Now, the country is 100 percent nuclear free even in terms of imports. Because there were no reports on the event at all, I contacted the press spokesperson at Verbund, Austria’s largest utility and got the following response (my translation of the German):
Starting in 2015, there is an obligation in Austria to demonstrate the origin of electricity. The sale of the ENTSOE mix, which theoretically includes a share of nuclear power, is no longer possible. We therefore also only offer our industry customers electricity with a certificate of origin (which then does not even theoretically contain any nuclear power)” Full article here.
Please contact the RSPB …to oppose this cull of red deer which have been here since the ice age… Nuclear waste goes through here, from Heysham to Sellafield, near the newly erected shooting towers, is it a good idea to be shooting deer near these train tracks???
We thought maybe the deer had a reprieve at least until we could make a case to stop the cull – and then we thought what if Leighton Moss want to get on and do the deed before any articles appear in the press.
So a couple of us went to Leighton Moss before dawn this morning planning to sit in the Grisdale and Jackson hide and watch out for the deer and any possible Deer Initiative people (the same who shot the Sellafield Deer ) who have been employed to do the shooting. We got met by Robin Horner the centre manager just as we were going into the reserve – he said the way was blocked to the public because of “management activity” …he was joined by another colleague who was repeating the line that “its for the good of the whole reserve” shortly after there was…
..of a Cumbrian girl whose father worked at Sellafield. When the girl of four develops leukaemia and other children in the same village have the disease, the finger of suspicion lies with the nuclear reprocessing plant. The film truthfully and painfully exposes the death grip that Sellafield has over the area “people are more afraid of unemployment than radiation.”
What has changed since 1993? Well for starters a film like this would NEVER be made now in this era of nuclear cheerleading.
Sellafield now has an accelerated program of reprocessing, the pipeline is still there, still chucking radioactive wastes out to sea. Greenpeace haven’t sent any more ships to block the pipeline. There are now more pathways for radioactive releases into the environment with radioactive waste now routinely going into Cumbrian landfill and Europe’s only radioactive scrap metal plant at Lillyhall is receiving tonnes of radioactive scrap metal to “clean up” and sell onto the open market. Gemma’s leukaemia is one of the many illnesses designated by our politicians as ‘nuclear health detriment’ which Chris Huhne when Energy Secretary of State (now a convicted liar) unilaterally decided “was justified by the benefits of nuclear power”.
There are calls for the Nuclear National Policy Statement to be reconsidered in the light of all the new evidence. The village of Beckermet is set to receive 3 dangerous reactors and associated sprawl just a five minute walk from the centre of the village. This would double the nuclear sprawl of Sellafield. There can be no justification at all for any industry to operate with such a cost to human life. Sellafield’s and the nuclear industry’s death grip is tighter than it was in 1993.
“Electricité de France (EdF), the French energy group, intends to build one of the largest nuclear power stations in the world at Hinkley Point, United Kingdom. However, this project would be commercially viable only on the basis of massive subsidies granted by the British government, which would clearly violate EU competition law.” The (previous) EU Commission approved these nuclear subsidies.
“This scandalous decision has the potential to trigger an avalanche of new nuclear power projects across Europe. The Austrian government is determined to take this case to the European Court of Justice, and EWS has lodged a formal complaint directly with the EU Commission.
Yet only if the pressure of European civil society surpasses the clout of nuclear lobbyists will we be able to prompt the newly appointed EU Commission to reverse this misguided decision. Any EU citizen is entitled to submit a complaint free of charge…
On 27th January at The Beacon, Radiation Free Lakeland will be holding a demonstration opposing the dumping of radioactive debris from 27 nuclear submarines at Sellafield.
We will meet at 11am – 2pm outside The Beacon in Whitehaven…
with our alternative exhibition and information. There may be singing!…but its not compulsory – just bring yourselves and say NO to Nuclear Submarine Dumping at Sellafield!
Any old subs, any old subs, any any old subs?
They look naff – talk about a threat,
You’ll look ill from your head until your feet,
Dressed in shrouds, more by the hour,
And a funny old shade of grey too,
Oh we don’t want your old rad subs here,
Old Subs, old subs?
words by Martyn Lowe of Close Capenhurst
Martyn will be joining us on the day.
The Ministry of Defence’s exhibition and workshop starts at 12 noon. We urge people to join us in demonstrating and opposing the dumping of nuclear submarines at Sellafield. This is the most dangerous nuclear site in Europe, and as we are told a “prime terrorist target.” Making Sellafield the MOD’s ongoing Nuclear Submarine Graveyard would link the site even more closely with the MOD and put Cumbria at even greater risk. Not to mention the fact that Sellafield cannot cope with the accumulating radioactive waste already at the site.
There is an excellent analysis of the situation here from the
Residents of Braystones, near Sellafield, have for some years been trying to get some remedy for the awful state of the railway crossing and line, not all of them are anti nuclear but all are worried.
I can vouch for the Heath Robinson nature of the crossing at Braystones.
Last time I was there a chap shouted across to me to ring the telephone
and see if he could cross with his car as he was:
b. too slow to get back from the phone to the car in time to open the
gates and cross
No one, it seems in this age of nuclear cheerleading in the UK, is willing to take responsibility and do something about this dangerous situation.
The following Article was sent to us and is reproduced in full, it is based on the letters sent by residents of Braystones to their MP and others who should be taking urgent action.
Nuclear trains have used the Cumbria coastal railway line for decades. One might expect that railway tracks and infra-structure used for such purposes would be amongst the best maintained in the country. Perhaps even more so, considering the £11⁄2 billion that is wasted each year at Sellafield and the many more billions that it is proposed by pro-nuclear lobbyists should be spent on nuclear development both at Sellafield and the adjacent Moorside site. Of course, further nuclear expansion around the country will require ever more long-distance transport of highly radioactive waste, but all of it will be delivered to Sellafield. Assuming current practise is maintained, then that will involve journeys to Carlisle then down the coast over the single-track section through Braystones. Other trains will use the southerly route, through Barrow-in-Furness. Sadly, according to Braystones residents, this line is not well maintained at all, and its structures, having been in situ for 160 years, may not be able to cope.
For almost six years now, they have been lobbying relevant bodies, from Network Rail to the Office of the Rail Regulator, to politicians and local and county councillors for improvements to the level crossing which serves the residents of the beach community. The crossing, which is manually self-operated, is the sole means for access to the beach bungalows, and is quite busy – especially during the spring and summer periods. Everyone from residents on the school run to builders’ supplies delivery vehicles to emergency vehicles has to use the system of telephoning the signal box at Sellafield to obtain permission to cross the line.
On a good day that is not too onerous. On many occasions, however, it can be very trying. When the signalman is busy attending to “proper” duties or absent from the signal-box for some reason, it can take a long time to obtain a reply via the closed-circuit telephone system. Whilst the official timetable for trains does give cut-off times, at which point the crossing users have to use their own judgement as to the safety of crossing, there are occasional ad hoc train movements, and nuclear flask trains have been seen later than the official times. Long track maintenance trains have often progressed through the crossing – sometimes as late as 1 a.m. – by which time everyone has assumed that there will be no further trains.
The signalling system for the seven mile-long single-tracked section between Sellafield and St. Bees originated over 150 years ago. The basic idea is that a “token” is issued by a signaller at one end of the single-track section. This licences the train driver to be in the section. On the driver’s arrival at the remote end of the section he hands the token to the second signaller and this becomes available for issue to a train heading in the opposite direction. No train should enter the section without being in possession of the token, ensuring only one train at a time occupies the line. Pedants will argue that things are more complex, but that is the basis of the system.
One of the weaknesses in the token system is that, once a train has left the issuing box, there is no further control or contact with the driver until his arrival at the remote box. In these days of mobile communications this system, therefore, is not the best available at a reasonable cost. The potential for corporate and personal culpability is illustrated in paper issued by the Office of the Rail Regulator, in their document #256823.03
Several incidents in recent years have illuminated the potential dangers vividly. One involved a dramatic re-enactment of The Railway Children (although fortunately spared the red drawers!) and the waving of articles of clothing by residents to stop a passenger train approaching a blockage on the line and danger
of falling into a collapsed embankment. The occasion was witnessed by an official from the ORR, but his memory failed him a few months later, when he could not recall what the train driver had told him about radio communications in the area. Three residents were able to recall it.
Even in Barrow-in-Furness, where one might expect things to be better maintained, there was a derailment at 5 m.p.h., because of poorly maintained track-work. Needless to say, the classic platitudes were issued: no-one was hurt; there was never any risk of radiation leaks, etc.
A passenger DMU en route to Sellafield was derailed just north of Braystones as a result of a landslip. A second unit sent from Sellafield to rescue passengers also became stuck when a further landslide occurred behind it.
The many landslides have pointed out the weakness of the embankments, whether from coastal erosion or water-logging. According to articles in railway journal, the angles at which embankments were originally cut do not provide the maximum stability and most need to be either redesigned or strengthened. The veracity of this can be seen from the fact that there have been at least three landslides sufficient to block the line in very recent times. Coupled with the exposed nature of the line and its susceptibility to storm damage by the tides, it may not seem a good idea to run nuclear trains along the line at speeds of up to 60 m.p.h. with a signalling system whose weaknesses are also well known.
In 1977, a train derailed after a bridge collapsed at Braystones, demolishing two of the beach bungalows, which, by pure good fortune, were unoccupied at the time. Residents are concerned about the condition of a bridge the other side of the station, where water pours through the block-work and a stream washes its foundations as the culvert through which it should flow has been damaged by winter storms. Several examinations, following complaints from residents, have resulted in no change.
Whether for the safety of people and vehicles crossing the line at Braystones or to protect the nuclear trains from accidents, it is way past time the entire system was brought up to date. Amazingly, a meeting with a Network Rail official revealed that there are 90 similar crossings in Cumbria. Fortunately, not all of them carry nuclear flask trains.
Articles in railway journals mention crossings which have automatic barriers automatically controlled by radar sensors built into the crossing furniture. Not only does the system scan the whole area for any changes, but it also relays the information to the signaller and/or train driver. Instead of such a “proper” system, Network Rail seem to think that residents should be very grateful for their proposed system of a push-button-actuated barrier, which still depends on the Sellafield signaller being available to grant permission for its use. Hardly an improvement, in our opinion.
After dark there is no lighting on the crossing, which is poorly maintained and very uneven. Despite lighting of crossings being officially sanctioned in these circumstances, beach residents’ pleas for a system of automatic proximity-activated lighting have come to nought.
In days of yore, the railway companies could be forgiven for adhering to the old system. Considering what a nuclear flask train accident’s consequences and costs would be, there is no excuse whatsoever. Whilst hoping that the premise is never tested in a court of law, we are convinced that culpability exists for all those officials, politicians, and councillors who have achieved so little over the years.
Nuclear: There will soon come a time when it is too late
In Dr. Martin Luther King’s Nobel Prize Lecture, October of 1964, he raises the alarm over nuclear weapons and the constant threat of annihilation by nuclear weapons, as an “imminent cosmic elegy“. Ignoring the nuclear threat “does not alter the nature and risks of such war“, he warns.  In his speech at the Riverside Church, one year before his death, he further warns that there is such a thing as “too late“. 
Today we stand on the threshold of too late, with regard to nuclear reactors, even more than nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors and the related mining, processing and waste legally leak lethal radionuclides into the environment, all of the time, even without a major accident. Many of the most dangerous, like plutonium and americium, continue to build up in…
Tomorrow at 2pm Copeland Borough Council’s Development Control Committee will be discussing once again the one 30 metre wind turbine for Petersburgh Farm. Councillors went against the advice of their officers and turned it down on the grounds of wildlife, beauty, noise and the like. This contrasts with NO SCRUTINY for 100 boreholes up to 15o m in the same area, the decision to go ahead with the 100 boreholes was left to one Development Manager.
PLEASE WRITE AND ASK that Copeland support this one wind turbine or if they feel the area is too beautiful for one wind turbine ask why on earth are they are supporting – the drilling of 100 boreholes up to 150m deep in the same area in preparation for the madness of “Moorside” ? write to: email@example.com
On Wednesday 21st January your Development Control Committee will once
again be discussing the plan for one wind turbine at Petersburgh Farm,
Radiation Free Lakeland fully support your officers in their assessment
that this application should be approved. We do however applaud your
scrutiny as councillors on this issue despite disagreeing with your
decision to turn the wind turbine down. We would agree with you that this
area, Beckermet village and its surrounds is diverse in wildlife, ancient
hedgerows, is beautiful and contains two SSSIs of Church Moss and the
River Ehen. We support the wind turbine as it would help ensure the
resilience of farming in this area, an area historically fertile and which
prior to Sellafield supported several farms.
We would like to share with you correspondence on this same area regarding
the “Moorside Project’ and the appalling lack of democratic oversight with
regards the planning application for 100 boreholes up to 150m. We would
remind you that Petersburgh Farm is on the boundary of “Moorside” and that
the farm would be demolished and made into a “bund’ should “Moorside” go
Please do read the following correspondence between Radiation Free
Lakeland and Tim Farron MP
Correspondence with Tim Farron MP
13th January 2013
Thanks for your email. I’ve gone through your constituent’s letter
point by point
3. Was it passed in 2011 (or 2012 according to NuGen correspondence with
us) without any scrutiny? The planning application for 100 exploratory
boreholes over 500 green acres in Beckermet was received on the 8th
October 2011 and delegated to one Development Manager of Copeland Borough
Council. The development was passed one month later. http://www.copeland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/d_weekly_list_09_09_11.pdf
Nugen say they were given “full planning permission on 11th November 2011”
(letter from Fergus McMorrow, Cumbria Planning Lead, NuGen Ltd to Rachel
Carrol, Planning Officer, Copeland BC, 28th Dec 2012)
The “extensive consultation” over that one month was limited to:
• Beckermet Parish Council who raised no objection,
• Office for Nuclear Regulation who raised no objection apart from
that the site be incorporated into the Sellafield Site Emergency Plan,
• Scientific Officer of Copeland BC who raised no objection with the
caveat that “if any contamination is identified, work should stop”,
• Environmental Health Officer of Copeland BC – no objection
• Head of Nuclear and Energy Development of Copeland BC – no objection
Radiation Free Lakeland did not know of this planning application, and it
seems no one else did, there is just one objection, from a resident
This is in contrast to for example the planning application for one wind
turbine at Petersburgh Farm (on the boundary of Moorside) which raised
huge discussion by the full council with additional reports from all
quarters and was turned down.
4. Has the correct procedure been followed? When Radiation Free Lakeland
asked NuGen about the lack of environmental impact assessments or
consultation for 100 boreholes up to 150m deep in area of greenfields,
hedgerows and two SSSI protected sites (the River Ehen and Church Moss).
The reply was “You will not find permits for the boreholes currently being
drilled on the Moorside site as they are not required.“ The planning
consent NuGen was granted in 2012 (??) permits the drilling of the
boreholes. The Environment Agency are aware of this activity … a specific
permit is not required…”
In their 2011 planning application for the 100 Boreholes NuGen say there
are “no protected and priority species,” when there is a huge diversity of
wildlife including species on the red list.NuGEN also says “there are no
trees or hedgerows” — again this is a fraud, there are at least 12 miles
of ancient hedgerows and trees. NuGEN says that “there are no designated
or important habitats or other biodiversity features” — again this is
fraudulent. They say there will be no contamination when the groundwater
(outside the Sellafield site) is documented by Sellafield as containing
5. Have Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria Council been mis-guided,
sidelined, deceived or misled into making a less than democratic decision?
Yes! Copeland Borough Councillers were not allowed discussion or decision
– the decision was taken by one Development Manager. It seems Cumbria
County Council was not consulted at all on the plan for 100 boreholes in
the vicinity of the worlds most dangerous nuclear wastes, on geological
faults and an area of known groundwater contamination. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/one-wind-turbine-turned-down-while-100-radioactive-boreholes-are-being-drilled-on-ancient-land/
We share the concerns of your new constituents and ask you as our MP and a
representative of government to:
a) Ask what discussions have taken place with government and Copeland
Borough Council leading to scrapping due democratic process on this
“exploratory” 100 borehole development for Moorside. Is this a taste of
things to come?
b) Ask Copeland Borough Council to place all the documents relating
100 borehole planning application and consent online. Radiation Free
Lakeland are constantly having to justify our telling of the awful truth
about this which seems crazy to lay people who assume that democracy and
due process is being upheld.
On behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
I have placed some documents refererred to above on file share but not
sure if this will work …. I could put them on a disc – Or –
Please could you ask Copeland BC for them to be made available to the
public online ?
> Our Ref: Birk004/45/ag
> 12 January 2015
> Dear Marianne
> I wonder if I might for once seek your assistance because I suspect that
> you will be far more up to date with information in response to the
> following questions that have been posed.
> If you could supply the relevant answers with the benefit of your close
> connections with campaigners in west cumbria, I and these constituents
> would be extremely grateful and you might well enlist more supporters!
> With best wishes
> Yours sincerely
> Tim Farron MP
> We moved from Rory Stewart’s Constituency into your Constituency on
> December 2013. As MP for South Lakeland, we thought you may know soemthing
> about the background to the development of the nuclear power site in
> Cumbria near the village of Beckermet in the Copeland Borough. It is being
> built at Petersburgh and Greenmoorside Farm, a beautiful historically
> fertile lowland area between the Lakeland mountains and Irish Sea. Have
> you heard about this development in Parliament, and are you satisfied that
> the planning application has gone through the correct channels?
> This Nuclear Power development is described as ‘the biggest nuclear
> development in Europe’ to be built by the company that built Fukushima.
> Who will own it and run it? Is it another of our Country’s assets to be
> owned by other Nationalities.
> We, the general public, have heard very little about its progress through
> the planning system. Was it passed in 2011 or 2012? Who knew about it?
> The application has been dealt with without any scrutiny or discussion by
> either Copeland Borough Council or Cumbria County Council. The decision
> was delegated to the Development Manager of Copeland Borough Council
> alone. Is it possible for such a major decision be made by one man or
> woman? Has the correct procedure been followed? What has been the
> Government’s involvement? What influence was used by the Nuclear Power
> Industry? Have Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria Council been
> mis-guided, sidelined, deceived or mislead into making a less than
> democratic decision?
> While Copeland Borough Council gives its full scrutiny to any applications
> for wind turbines,(a single wind turbine’s application at Petersburgh
> being refused in 2014 after full scrutiny) the same is not true for
> nuclear planning applications. The application from the Nuclear Industry
> for a 100 boreholes in the same area was given consent in 2011 (or 2012?)
> without any scrutiny or discussion either by Copeland Council or Cumbria
> County Council. Did the Government in the South and Nuclear Industry
> ignore them?
> We have no faith in the way this Government has renaged on its Renewable
> Energy Policies and its delusion in calling Nuclear Power ‘green energy’.
Sellafield – how the nuclear industry fleeced taxpayers by David Lowry
19th January 2015
Last week the consortium holding a £22bn contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear site was sacked, writes David Lowry. But this is just the end of a long and scandalous tale of corporate profit at taxpayers’ expense, and the active collusion of ministers and senior officials in fighting off Parliamentary scrutiny.
It’s an appalling waste of public money. It’s like scattering confetti. Time extends and extends. I have looked at this two or three times now and every time I look at it the cost goes up – not in hundreds of millions, but in billions.
Last 4th November the managing director of Sellafield, the giant nuclear waste processing plant on the Cumbian coast in NW England, issued its report to the six-monthly meeting of the nuclear sites stakeholder group covering the Sellafield plant.
In bullish tone he opened his introduction, boldly pronouncing: “This time last year, in my first report to WCSSG as Sellafield Ltd’s Managing Director, I talked about our new strategy Key to Britain’s Energy Future.
“I explained that I wanted a clear strategy, understood by our employees and the local community, to drive improved performance in our nationally important task of cleaning up the Sellafield Site.
“The strategy describes how we will deliver our clean up mission by keeping Sellafield safe and secure, by making demonstrable progress on all of our activities and by providing a return on taxpayers’ investment through value for money and socio-economic benefit in our local community.
“Our strategy describes where we want to be, and the Sellafield plan explains how we will get there. We recently launched a companion document, the Excellence Plan which outlines activities that will improve our ability to reach our goal.”
Two months later – sacked
Barely two months later, on 13 January, Energy Secretary Ed Davey announced in a statement to Parliament that he was sacking Nuclear Management Partners (NMP), the private consortium awarded the £22 billion top tier management contract for Britain’s biggest nuclear installation, in early October 2008.
In all the handwringing in the last few days on the termination of the Nuclear Management Partners lucrative Sellafield contract, perhaps the most nauseating and hypocritical is that by Jamie Reed MP. He tweeted “Sellafield NMP contract terminated. Inevitable, necessary and overdue”.
In 2008 when MP Paul Flynn quite rightly questioned the huge sums of money being awarded to NMP by DECC without any Parliamentary scrutiny at all, Jamie Reed poo poohed this concern as an “incoherent concoction.”
Dr David Lowry an independent research policy consultant, has provided the backstory to this appalling ongoing corruption of governance in all things nuclear….. “Geoffrey Lean only partly explains what happened this week: what went wrong, but not why nor how such a poor private consortium was able to secure thecontract in the first place.
The known facts in the backstory to the Sellafield decision are startling.
I have worked on this issue with Labour MP Paul Flynn for seven years, and hisattempts to make transparent the deal done to give Nuclear Management Partners(NMP) the contract have been met with obstruction- by Government and in nuclearindustry at every turn.
When he initiated Parliamentary debate, on 19 November 2008, shortly after theNMP contract was awarded in early October 2008, coincidentally two days afterEd Miliband became Labour’s first Secretary of State for Energy and ClimateChanger, Mr Flynn was dismissed by Mike O’Brien, the then Labour energy minister, as a conspiracy theorist asserting “his concoction of conspiracytheory, innuendo and hyperbole has reached new heights in the House,” and told MPsFlynn had “exaggerated, went way over the top in his condemnations.”
Mr Flynn’s Labour colleague, Jamie Reed chipped in with the observation that MrFlynn’s exposure was an “incoherent concoction.”€ (Hansard, 19 Nov 2008 :Column 125WH)
Let your readers decide, now the current energy secretary has sacked NMP partnersfrom their £22 billioncontract, who was exaggerating and whether Mr Flynn’s criticisms were coherent.
Mr Flynn tabled an early day motion (EDM) – a kind of political notice – on theNMP contract on 6 February 2013, which included the observation: “DECC werequestioned on the probity of such huge sums being awarded (to NMP) withoutParliamentary scrutiny; recalls an earlier EDM 2321 on Parliamentary Oversight of Sellafield Indemnification tabled on 22 October 2008 observed accuratelythat the agreement would privatise the profits of the Sellafield managementcontract leaving the potentially multi-billion pound liabilities withtaxpayers; acknowledges the subsequent release of internal memoranda and emailsbetween DECC and NDA officials which expose the deliberate cover up from Parliament.”
I obtained the internal e-mails and documents from the Nuclear DecommissioningAuthority, who own Sellafield, after a protracted battle over disclosure formany months in 2008, which were very heavily censored prior to release withwhole pages, and the names of most of the officials involved, having beensystematically blanked out. Nonetheless, they included buried in the 140-odd pages released, the extraordinary revelation that the Department of Trade andIndustry, DECC’s predecessor department responsible for nuclear policy, and theNDA, wanted to go ahead with awarding the deal to NMP, by avoiding dueParliamentary scrutiny and circumventing democratic oversight, detailing how the deception of Parliament was to be effected. It was a clear scandal.
Energy secretary Ed Davey says a new transitional management arrangement willbe brought in over 15 months. The minimum the public and Parliament can expectis every aspect of this is fully transparent and open to detailed scrutiny inpublic before any new agreement is signed.”