There is a consultation going on for three new reactors in Suffolk. These would be next to the already dangerous situation at Sizewell.
There is a letter below from Radiation Free Lakeland – please feel free to use this for ideas to write your own objection. Email your comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org
From: RADIATION FREE LAKELAND
SIZEWELL C – CONSULTATION 2
Radiation Free Lakeland is a voluntary nuclear safety group based in Cumbria.
Radiation Free Lakeland unequivocally opposes the proposal for three new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. The existing reactors and associated nuclear sprawl already constitute an unacceptable hazard. Given this already intolerable hazard and ongoing radiological damage inflicted on the people of Suffolk, plans for new nuclear build should be scrapped.
Sizewell’s accumulating nuclear waste starts its journey in the North West of England
Near Preston is situated Springfields Nuclear Fuel Plant. Springfields is the supplier of nuclear fuel for Sizewell B and we assume that Springfields is also to be the planned supplier for Sizewell C. The Springfields site is located between Preston and Blackpool (five miles from the proposed Preston New Road fracking site) and is owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) for whom it is operated by Westinghouse. Westinghouse are now owned by Toshiba ( principal partner in the NuGen plan for 3 reactors in Cumbria.)
Springfields is now gearing up to produce fuel for the nuclear “renaissance” which includes Sizewell C. Springfields was the first nuclear fuel site on planet earth, having provided nuclear fuel for nuclear catastrophes worldwide including here at Windscale (Sellafield) where plutonium and polonium was spread over a large area. The damage to human health has never been quantified despite government-sanctioned experiments, which included body part snatching. Peer reviewed studies show large increases of damage to health ranging from downs syndrome to childhood leukaemia.
The nuclear waste from the manufacture of fuel for Sizewell A and B (and over 100 nuclear plants worldwide) has been (and is being) dumped to the river Ribble and into Clifton Marsh landfill, near Preston. The Northwest is home to one of the world’s largest concentrations of nuclear facilities. Continuing and expanding this poison chalice is unacceptable especially as there is no safe “disposal” of nuclear wastes from the front and back end of the nuclear fuel chain. Rivers and Seas bear the brunt of nuclear waste “disposal.” Solid wastes are increasingly being dumped into landfill under new deregulations of High Volume Very Low Level Wastes. Radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants and at Sellafield. This is an ever- increasing and ongoing intergenerational hazard. Adding to this would be beyond the scope of ethics to justify.
HEALTH AND THE MOST VULNERABLE
We note that childhood cancer has risen nearly 30% throughout the UK since Springfields started producing nuclear fuel. Dr Ian Fairlie has pointed out that most nuclide emissions from nuclear reactors are not spread evenly across the whole year but during short refuelling episodes which occur about once a year and which last a few days or so. “People living near nuclear power stations and downwind from them will be exposed to high doses of radiation during these emissions spikes – much higher than from releases during the rest of the year. Estimates range from 20 to 100 times higher. Recently the UK National Dose Assessment Working Group published guidance on “Short Term Releases to the Atmosphere” http://www.ndawg.org/documents/NDAWG-2-2011_000.pdf. This states that “…doses from the assessment of a single realistic short-term release are a factor of about 20 greater than doses from the continuous release assessment.” An older German study (Hinrichsen, 2001*) indicated that these doses could be a factor of 100 greater. The precise amount will depend on many factors, including source term, proximity to the reactor, wind speed, wind direction, and the diets and habits of local people.”
The government insist however on subscribing to a theory that proposes increases in childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear power stations are down to a mystery virus caused by “population mixing” when large numbers of construction/nuclear workers move into a relatively rural area.
There are however much wider health concerns and these are reflected in the industry’s own Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. The public, which includes pregnant women, children and young people living outside of the militarised nuclear fences have to take their chances. This collateral damage to public health is unacceptable. To knowingly increase this damage with the plan for Sizewell C would be beyond the scope of ethics to justify.
Halt the plan.
Sizewell C cannot be justified
Radiation Free Lakeland
Westinghouse Comment on Safety at Springfields
An unusual cluster of Downs Syndrome – was it caused by the Windscale Fire?
Nuclear Waste – No “Disposal”
Nuclear Laundry at Lillyhall
Nuclear Landfill at Lillyhall
Radioactive Spikes at Nuclear Power Stations
Population Mixing Myth of the Unidentified Virus
Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases