Kick Nuclear – Nuclear Industry Forum

kicknuclear-logosmallNuclear Fuel Chain in the North West

A Message from Kick Nuclear to the Nuclear Industry Forum 2015.

We are here this morning to again advise you of the error of your ways. Civilian nuclear power was only ever a fig leaf for nuclear bomb making, and civilian nuclear power is no longer either cheap, needed or acceptable.

Don’t just take our word for it. The world’s major investment banks no longer back nuclear. This week, UBS released a report saying that within a decade, solar power will provide 10% of the world’s electricity supply, and that its growth rate will only continue to accelerate, beating coal and nuclear as the world’s default energy technology. “We believe the financial community and most industry experts largely underestimate the global solar capacity growth, as falling costs, supportive regulation and the opening up of new solar markets seem to go largely unnoticed.”

Or as Goldman Sachs put it last year, declining prices of solar plus storage mean that by 2033 homeowners will no longer need to be connected to the grid at all. “Power companies planning large reactors or continued operation of expensive old reactors will be in trouble in this new marketplace.” Boosting the prices charged for nuclear-generated electricity to protect these ageing monsters will only speed up defection from the grid.

Deutsche Bank went even further, predicting that within two years roof-top solar will reach grid parity in all 50 states in the US. US rooftop solar installation will, they say, rise from 8 GW this year to 16 GW in 2016. And this growth will only accelerate.

The real problem for your industry is that the costs of renewables are dropping rapidly, while the cost of nuclear is constantly rising. The crossover point, grid parity, was reached for the sunniest states in the US last year, and is even projected to reach the English Midlands within a year or two. Storage of the energy produced by renewables is the one remaining issue, but in principle it’s not difficult. Pump the water up the hill when energy is produced; let it run back down the hill through generators when you need it. And the announcement by Tesla of Powerwall batteries of 7 kWh capacity for $3500 is another nail in your industry’s coffin. You always played up the difficulties of storing electricity overnight, while downplaying the difficulties of storing your deadly waste for 100,000 years. Well, looks like that one is over for you..

Meanwhile, the ‘new’ French reactor, the EPR, is running into more problems every month. The flagship EPR reactor that Areva is building in Finland is 9 years late and has risen from €3.2 billion to €8.5 billion, which has led to the cancellation of a planned 2nd EPR on the site, (Olkiluoto 4), and a €10 billion court case between Areva and the Finnish power company. The reactor pressure vessel for the equally late and over-budget EPR in France has now been found to be made of steel with too much carbon in it, reducing its toughness, meaning any cracks that start will spread rapidly. And you’ve already welded on all the connections, so replacing the RPV will be horrendously expensive and time consuming. I doubt if the Chinese, who you also have delivered two similarly manufactured EPR RPVs to, are very impressed. Which, since you can’t build your desired EPR in Hinkley Point, near Bristol, without them, is quite serious. Even the massive dollop of English taxpayers cash offered the project, (twice the current price of electricity, index linked for 35 years) is on its own not enough for this cash-hungry dream project. One nuclear engineer (Tony Roulstone, Cambridge University) has described the EPR as too complex to actually build, “unconstructable”. Areva posted a loss of €4.83 billion in 2014, while its market capitalisation is around €3.29 billion. So the French Government has got EDF to take it over to spread the losses around. Ultimately, it’s the French taxpayer on the hook. But then you have never, anywhere, built a nuclear reactor without massive chunks of government money, have you? Adding to your woes, Le Monde reported a study showing that powering France from 100% renewables by 2050 would cost about the same as a mix including 50% nuclear, 40% renewables. (11.9 cents kWh versus 11.7 cents kWh).

5 of your ageing nuclear power stations got closed down on economic grounds in the USA last year. You have 388 operating reactors world-wide, 50 fewer than 2002. You produced 10.8% of the world’s electricity in 2013, down from 17.6% in 1996. An industry in decline. And still no solution in sight for your achilles heel, where to hide the waste. Waste that solar, wind and tidal power don’t produce. Japan added 10 GW of solar power during 2014, and Fukushima has moved the Japanese population from 30% opposing nuclear to 70% opposing nuclear. It is hard for you lot to compete with an alternative that is cleaner, safer and now cheaper. Bad luck.

And Fukushima continues to leak 400 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day, as it has for over 4 years now. And your industry has no idea how to stop it; it just knows how to contain the political fallout, not the real fallout that results from your deathtraps having a bad day. Windscale, Three Mile Island, Tschernobyl, Fukushima; each of your little ‘whoops’ events is worse that the last. Not just shot yourselves in the foot; you’ve blown your feet off.

So sorry!!

Produced by Kick Nuclear, London.

A Note from Radiation Free Lakeland – Brilliant that Kick Nuclear were there to highlight the insanity of nuclear power.  “Sorry” might be the hardest word – but in respect of nuclear accident, incident or just routine emissions …”sorry” just doesn’t cut it .

“Woolly Thinker” anonymous article in Windermere Now

Windermere Now May 2015
WIndermere Now: “Britian is highly dependent on nuclear power…Lets get real and get the stuff ‘buried’ very deep where it belongs” Really? and Really??

Windermere’s Free Paper, Windermere Now has published an anonymous article     (pg 8) promoting Moorside and Geological Dumping.

Radiation Free Lakeland are grossly misrepresented as being “Not in My Back Yard”  when what we have been consistently saying is NOT IN ANYONE’S BACK YARD.

What would the Lakeland men and women of old think of this?  Wordsworth?Ruskin?  Beatrix Potter?  I think they would be horrified to see such a blasé and toadying attitude to the most extreme and abusive industry.

I think their views would be more akin to Duncan Ball a Sellafield Foreman. Duncan’s poems chronicled the nuclear industry and include one that was read out publicly at the  international “Lakes for Living” conference in Windermere.

For nuclear waste growing bigger and hotter

They’re draining the life from Lakeland and Otter

Cooling the poison they’ve shipped from afar

Condemning the Angler and Arctic Char

“What’s the harm? There’s water aplenty!”
Say the loudest mouths with heads near empty,
while for son and daughter the waters spoil
cooling waste in the kettle I fear will boil…”

We have written a reply to the “Woolly Thinker” article  – will wait to see if it is published……

Friends of the Earth UK’s Top Ten Priorities- No 1: Keep Schtum about Nuclear

Anti Nuclear & Clean Energy Campaign - Australia FoE
Anti Nuclear & Clean Energy Campaign – Australia FoE

As a former long time activist with Friends of the Earth this is horrifying. Simon Bullock, Friends of the Earth’s senior campaigner on Climate Change and Energy has outlined the top ten priorities for Amber Rudd, the new head of the Department of Energy and Climate Change.  DECC was formed in 2008 amidst great hope for a new future tackling climate change and ensuring a genuinely sustainable future.  The grim reality of  DECC is that 95% of its budget goes to nuclear .  Almost all of the roughly £7.9 billion DECC budget during 2013/14 went towards “cleaning up”  the UK’s nuclear legacy largely at Sellafield through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), a government quango.  The NDA has also spent public money on buying up large areas of land around Sellafield – one would think as a buffer zone as a measure of protection for the public but no.  This green land near Sellafield is now being offered for sale to the companies responsible for Fukushima to build untried untested AP1000 reactors.

Nuclear is the most extreme energy  blocking the move to a sustainable renewable future.  Room must be made for the inflexible leviathan of nuclear electricity  in the national grid which is why exciting new renewable schemes are briefed against and scrapped repeatedly.  Divestment away from nuclear and into renewable technology is happening across the globe, even in China carbon emissions are falling as a result of investment in renewable technologies. Despite DECC’s budget being blown on nuclear, Friends of the Earth’s top ten priorities make only one reference to nuclear and that is to the fact that  solar is cheaper than nuclear.  Talk about giving the nuclear industry an easy ride!  People are beginning to talk about the damage this lack of action from FoE and it has to be said Greenpeace is doing.  That is not to detract from the fantastic work that FoE and Greenpeace do otherwise.  Also Greenpeace and FoE are being fantastically successful   in vigorously campaigning to secure a divestment away from nuclear internationally – just not here in the UK for whatever reason.

This is what Friends of the Earth’s top ten priorities for Amber Rudd should  be:

1.  Solidarity with those countries around the world phasing out nuclear energy in favour of renewable technology.  Here in the UK just 3% of final energy demand was provided by nuclear in 2013.  Nuclear is fuel based, Renewables are a technology. Investment into renewable technology and divestment away from nuclear fuel burning reactors.

2. A Moratorium on Decommissioning of Nuclear Sites.  The nuclear industry is being deregulated to allow novel pathways for nuclear waste in order to clear the decks for new nuclear waste.  For example nuclear waste has been classified as “exempt” to dump into landfill and “free release” for  metal recycling into the open market. Investment into R&D and the containment of nuclear wastes on site of production

3. Investment into energy efficient technologies and Warm Homes.

4. Investment in Solar

5. Investment in Wind.  Onshore and Offshore.  More support for community owned projects.

6.  Support for Employment in Renewable Sectors

7.  Moratorium on Fracking.  The largest user of gas in Cumbria is Sellafield.  There is a high pressure gas pipe from Barrow to Sellafield.  Tens of £millions of gas every year to cool the wastes and reprocess spent fuel thereby making the volume of nuclear wastes greater and more complex.  Sellafield stopped producing electricity in 2003

8. Protection of water resources.  Currently Thirlmere is being eyed up as a fresh water resource by NuGen the consortium planning to build three Ap1000 reactors near Sellafield.    Sellafield itself already abstracts 4 million gallons of water daily to cool the wastes and for other processes on site.

9.  Scrap the Hinkley C nuclear plant now before more £millions are wasted.  Return the site to green fields, the ancient hedgerows will be more difficult to replace.

10. Moratorium on  “Implementation of Geological Disposal” of nuclear wastes.   The rejected plan in the 1990s was for intermediate level wastes.  DECCS new plan which has already been rejected by Cumbria County Council is many times larger and includes heat generating wastes to be buried 3000 ft underground in an area one fifth the size of Cumbria.

We would agree with the last three points FoE make-

but would include uranium as a chemical element akin  to fossil fuel, making nuclear power the most extreme energy there is.

No new dash for gas or biomass The Conservative Manifesto pledges a major expansion in new gas plants, which is set to break carbon targets, and mean more imports of gas, irrespective of whether fracking happens. A dash-for-gas is bad for the UK’s energy security and our climate. These plans should be dropped, and replaced with a focus on cutting gas use and a 2030 power decarbonisation target. Phase-out coal Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel.

We strongly support the Prime Minister’s pledge to phase-out coal power. It needs to happen by 2023 at the latest. But to get a phase-out means tougher policy from DECC. This should be linked with a ban on open-cast coal mining – a blight on local communities.

Build strong bridges with DfT, DEFRA and Treasury DECC needs to work strongly with all departments on climate change – but three are critical: The Department for Transport needs to seize the huge economic opportunities from a switch to electric vehicles, and in the first year the decision on airport expansion is crucial. On both air and road transport, the Department needs to reverse its strategy to support all predicted growth in demand. The Treasury can be a huge enabler or blocker of all climate policy. It could allow the Green Investment Bank to borrow as a first signal of a changed approach.

Finally, DEFRA has the lead role in reducing the air pollution that is killing thousands of people every year, and costing the NHS billions, and in adequately protecting people from the climate change we can no longer avoid.

Kick Nuclear Send Message of Support – *Stop Moorside* Demo this Saturday

Image by Stew Art
Image by Stew Art
made-in-the-usa
AP1000 unit under construction in USA – Sellafield would be doubled in size with Moorside

Demonstration this Saturday 16th May from 11am outside Whitehaven Civic Hall STOP MOORSIDE London based group Kick Nuclear have sent a message of support for the Stop Moorside demonstration: The group Kick Nuclear wish to express their support for Radiation Free Lakeland in their objections to plans for building a new nuclear power station at Moorside. The plans are for three very large nuclear reactors with a combined capacity of 3,400MW of energy to be built at the site. The present joint owners of the project are 60% the Japanese company Toshiba and 40% the French one, GDF Suez (renamed “Engie” last month) and the reactors they intend to build are AP1000 pressurised water reactors, which are also designed and built by Toshiba,. We wish to put four objections to these plans: 1) Many studies have shown that nuclear reactors leak radiation into the surrounding ground and air and cause a rise in radiation-linked disease such as leukaemia in children living in the surrounding area. [See: http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/childhood-leukemias-near-nuclear-power-stations-new-article/%5D 2) The Sellafield area is already the most polluted area in the British Isles in terms of radioactivity and the aim should be to get rid of all the radioactive pollution in the area and not add to it. 3) When things go wrong with nuclear reactors, as at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the consequences can be catastrophic. We should not take that risk. 4) Nuclear reactors produce large amounts of nuclear waste containing many radioactive substances some of which have half-lives lasting tens of thousands of years. We should not leave such a legacy for future generations to have to deal with and suffer the health effect of. The News and Star have reported on the forthcoming demonstration “No one, but no one, remembers when Sellafield was a beautiful fresh water tarn full of fish and thought to be a site of neolithic lake dwellers. “We ask people to join us in making sure that future generations know Cumbria as a fertile bountiful home rather than a nuclear sacrifice zone”.

Cumbrian Based Fukushima Companies Lie About Energy Produced by Moorside Plan

Moorside Advertorial

Every paper this week in Cumbria has a double page spread about the plan to build 3 diabolic reactors on ancient green fields and hedgerows .

The nuclear industry and their government cronies have done everything in their power to steamroller Cumbria down this vicious radioactive route.  But still that is not enough for them.  They are lying to Cumbrians about the amount of electricity these 3 untried untested “Chernobyl on steroids” reactors would produce.

The double page advertorials printed in every local newspaper proclaim that

“NuGen’s Moorside Project aims to provide approximately 7% of the UK’s current energy requirement.”

This is a blatant lie

If NuGen do not know the difference between electricity and energy then why should we believe their other blatant lies that this will be “safe”  “low carbon”  and the biggest lie of all is the pretence that nuclear is not killing us with increasing radiation linked diseases.

Cumbrians Wake Up – don’t rely on Radiation Free Lakeland to counter the lies and oppose this poisoning of our land and our DNA.

You are the Resistance!

Mobilise to Stop Moorside –

Petition: there is a petition which has not had the benefit of double page advertorials or any media publicity but has already gathered 7167 signatures.

Write to Open Spaces, the NFU, Friends of the Lake District, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, The Scottish Parliament, The Irish Parliament, Norway – all those who would be disastrously impacted on by this development (everyone!)  and urge them to OPPOSE.  The consultation by the developers does not allow for opposition it is designed like an old fashioned mangle to pull you along in one direction with no means of disengagement.  The only sane option is for people to create their own platforms and OPPOSE.

Arnie Gundersen: When Will They Ever Learn

Moorside AP1000  “New means untested”

When Will They Ever Learn – The Lesson from Sir John Cockcroft

Article by Arnie Gundersen March 19th 2015

My week in the UK was exciting and full of surprises. I spoke to hundreds of people in London and Cumbria who are committed to a new energy future for Europe. They know that the dated model of big business centralized electricity production is ending, and they see a clean, disaster free viable alternative in locally distributed generation. Still, it seems that the established British utilities are so fixated on nuclear power that they just offered to charge their customers twice the current market price for electricity for the next 35-years, so that a French nuclear company could build a fancy and untried new nuclear design at Hinkley Point.

The United Kingdom is anything but united when it comes to how it will produce electricity in the 21st century! Britain has experienced the dangers of nuclear power first hand as the site of the world’s first major nuclear disaster at Windscale, receiving huge amounts of contamination from Chernobyl fallout in Wales, and contaminating the Irish Sea with Plutonium at its waste reprocessing plant at Sellafield. With that background, I understand why the citizens of the UK embrace a nuclear free future. When I spoke at the House of Commons, it was clear that only a minority of the MP’s (like US Representatives) could envision an energy future different than the past. Similar to the US, the financially influential electric power monopolies have convinced a majority of the MPs that there is no alternative to nuclear power.

Thankfully, many people in the UK disagree and see a nuclear free future! Surprisingly, it was in Cumbria that I saw the most poignant reminder of how dangerous nuclear power is. There in the fog and rain stood “Cockcroft’s Folly”, a ventilation stack on the old Windscale reactor. Filters on that stack, thankfully, captured most of the radiation released during the 1957 Windscale catastrophe. When Windscale was under construction, Sir John Cockcroft, a great engineer and Nobel Prize winner, insisted that filters be added to the ventilation stack. The British nuclear establishment laughed at him, but he was unyielding and persisted in his cause until the filters were added to Windscale. Naysayers nicknamed the filters “Cockcroft’s Folly”, and no one believed they were necessary.

Then came the Windscale nuclear core fire and those “unnecessary” filters saved thousands of lives. Too contaminated even now to be removed, “Cockcroft’s Folly” stands in the middle of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, part of a more than $60 Billion cleanup planned for the neighboring stretch of coastline along the contaminated the Irish Sea. Three new AP1000 reactors are proposed to be built in Cumbria within sight of “Cockcroft’s Folly”. Since 2010, I have repeatedly said that the AP1000 design suffers the same design flaw as the old Windscale reactor. Like Sir John, I believe that filters must be added to the top of the AP1000 shield building to prevent huge amounts of radiation from being released during a meltdown. I call this problem “the chimney effect” and wrote a paper about it entitled “ Nuclear Containment Failures- Ramifications for the AP1000 Containment Design”. The Independent, a major newspaper in the UK, courageously wrote about my concerns with the headline: Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen warns of ‘Chernobyl on steroids’ risk in UK from proposed Cumbria plant . Fairewinds received hundreds of tweets praising that story, and as can be expected, some of the 20th century paradigm pro-nukes pushed back, attacking my credibility. Sir John Cockcroft must be spinning in his grave, wondering “When will they ever learn?”

Related  Links:

http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-containment-failures/#sthash.PGOp261X.dpbs http://www.niauk.org/news/2135-descendants-of-nobel-winning-physicist-witness-the-dismantling-of-cockcroft-s-folly-descendants-of-nobel-winning-physicist-witness-the-dismantling-of-cockcroft-s-folly http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nuclear-expert-arnie-gundersen-warns-of-chernobyl-on-steroids-risk-in-uk-from-proposed-cumbria-plant-10109930.html) – See more at: http://www.fairewinds.org/fairewinds-nuke-truth-at-house-of-commons/#sthash.xxj1rxv9.y795eBoU.dpuf

Is this the reason for 100 boreholes next to Sellafield ?

'Moorside' 100 boreholes up to 150m deep on greenfield site to "explore" geology for new build.
‘Moorside’ 100 boreholes up to 150m deep on greenfield site to “explore” geology for new build?? OR??

The thought provoking article below appeared on the Upper Calder Valley Plain Speaker website on 17th Feb.

We have reproduced it below.  It is clear that government are keen  to get shot of nuclear wastes in any way they can.  One hundred 150m deep boreholes are being drilled right now adjacent to the Sellafield site on the greenfield area earmarked for “Moorside.”   While “Moorside” may well be “delayed’ for years what are the 100 boreholes for – and why were they given planning permission on the say so of one Development Manager?

Parliament is considering rapid legislation that would remove the right of County Councils to object to burying radioactive waste underground, potentially at levels where water circulates.

You might want to write to your MP asap, asking him not to vote for this proposal. If so, there is a template letter at the end of this article you can use if you like.

This proposed legislation is the ConDem government’s response to the 2013 refusal of Cumbria County Council to accept plans to bury highly toxic nuclear waste under the Lake District. This decision was a major blow to government ambitions to build new nuclear power plants.

Coalition government wants to move goalposts

Now the ConDem government is trying to move the goal posts, through the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015. This extends the Planning Act 2008 to cover nuclear waste disposal.

To pass this extension of the Planning Act into law requires the ‘affirmative procedure’ of approval. This means it must be positively approved by each House of Parliament before coming into force. Writing on 26 Jan 2015 in a law firm blog, specialist planning and infrastructure lawyer Angus Wilson explained that this approval should happen in the next couple of weeks.

In the same blog post, Angus Wilson wrote,

“Of course this isn’t a random extension to the [planning] regime, the government has in mind the creation of one such facility, likely to be in Cumbria. It tried before but in January 2013 the project was vetoed by Cumbria County Council. It’s trying again and for obvious reasons has removed the ability for a county council to veto the process.”

Related removal of landowners’ right to deny access to underground fracking?

Hebden Bridge anti-fracking activist Helen Chuntso told Plain Speaker,

“The UK does not have the land mass, simple geology or low population density to recreate the shale gas boom seen in the USA. Economically, it doesn’t make sense (except maybe in very gas rich areas, certainly not 2/3 of the country, which is why the DECC are wavering on the fracking National Parks like N Yorkshire Moors). One possible explanation for the drilling is to look for places to bury nuclear waste. The government has forced through legislation that will remove our right to deny access to underground fracking, and now this new bill attempts to remove the right of the county council, to object to burying radioactive waste underground, potentially at levels where water circulates.”

If you would like to take action, writing to your MP is a good start. You can find their email address here.

Here is a template letter to your MP

Dear MP,

I am writing to ask you to consider speaking out against and voting against the addition of radioactive waste geological disposal facilities (GDFs) to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs).

It is undemocratic to remove county councils from the process, along with the opportunity for proper scrutiny of development plans and the chance for people to object. In Cumbria, where a GDF proposal has been on the cards for some time, there has been significant resistance from local people and the county council. Given that Cumbria County Council is a pro-nuclear council and they had legitimate concerns about the GDF plans it would be extremely unwise to exclude this level of government and thereby the people that they represent from planning decisions.

I oppose the dumping of nuclear waste underground since the consequences are largely unknown. There is no guarantee that the facilities can contain the radionuclides long-term, and not enough knowledge of how water flows underground, or how it travels though faults in rocks. Dangerous levels of radioactivity could end up in aquifers that supply drinking water.

I believe that existing nuclear waste should be stored in a retrievable manner at the surface, or near to the surface, in line with Scotland’s Higher Activity Radioactive Waste Policy 2011. Waste could then be monitored and managed appropriately without risk of exposure to water supplies, and without additional cause for concern for future generations.

Yours sincerely,

Here is the link to lawyer Angus Wilson’s blog post

Austria Home to the International Atomic Energy Authority BANS imports of nuclear power

austria

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?

BAN NUCLEAR!

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.

HMS Churchill launch in Barrow 1968

Any Old Subs..Any Old Subs?? Here are 27 Nuclear Subs for Sellafield?

HMS Churchill launch in Barrow 1968
HMS Churchill launch in Barrow 1968              
"Receptor"  on the Duddon Estuary
“Receptor”
on the Duddon Estuary

On 27th January at The Beacon, Radiation Free Lakeland will be holding a demonstration opposing the dumping of 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!

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.

In 1968 yours truly went with other Furness 6 year olds to cheer the launch of the “superclass” nuclear submarine HMS Churchill built in Barrow.  We didn’t know then that there are liquid and gaseous radioactive waste emissions to sea and air from the building of nuclear submarines : “Radiological Habits Survey: Barrow and the south-west Cumbrian Coast”.   Barrovians are now very helpfully told that the nuclear sub building emissions are dwarfed by the emissions from Sellafield :

“The discharges from the Barrow nuclear site are minor compared with those from other nuclear sites located on the north-west coast of England. The coast and sea area in the vicinity of Barrow-in- Furness and south-west Cumbria may be affected by discharges of liquid radioactive waste from these sites, most notably Sellafield”.

Back to 1968 and that is me you can hear cheering and waving a Union Jack.  HMS Churchill was launched by Churchill’s daughter and this nuclear power “hunter killer”  submarine served with the Royal Navy from 1968 to the early 1990s.

The wikipedia page informs us under “Fate” that HMS Churchill is “awaiting disposal” along with another 26 nuclear subs.

There is an excellent analysis of the situation here from the

Close Capenhurst campaign

Ministry of Defence Invitation: http://www.nuclearinst.com/Events/Submarine-Dismantling-Project-consultation-and-exhibitions/23231

The Map Redrawn to include Lake District Nuclear Park …Is ANYONE Looking?

Lake Disctrict Nuclear Park
Lake Disctrict Nuclear Park

What – No comment in the National Press?

No Comment by Countryside Protection Groups?

Sellafield has expanded its exclusion zone in the event of an accident. The expansion now includes a chunk of the Lake District National Park. The question must be asked.. is anyone looking?  Does anyone care?

The proposed new build between the village of Beckermet and Sellafield would double the Sellafield footprint with the “exclusion zone” map then having to  be redrawn even further into the “official” Lake District.

Its all nonsense of course because radiation from routine and accidental release does not fit neatly into a circle drawn on a map and anyone who believes this magic red line on the map must truly be a child of the new nuclear cheerleading age.