Thinking About the Energy Fuelling the Food We Eat.

is-your-dinner-creating-nuclear-waste

The Lancaster Guardian had a gem of an article entitled “Thinking About the Energy Fuelling the Food We Eat” (12/1/17)

The hidden ingredient . . . .

However much care we take with the ingredients for our favourite dishes – there is one ingredient we probably don’t think about very much – and that’s the power we use to cook the food. Even brewing up tea – whatever we do that uses electricity – might well be including some ingredients we hadn’t thought about – like increasing nuclear waste dumps, or piling loads more CO2 in the atmosphere.

If our household supply is with a regular electricity supplier then it is likely to be generated by coal fired power stations or else nuclear ones. So it may well be that even the most carefully selected food is creating nuclear waste just by the way it is cooked.

Sam from Skerton has been looking into all this and has found that there is now a really simple way to change over our household electricity to a green renewables provider. http://www.greenelectricity.org is a comparison site listing all the possible renewable suppliers for the area. It is really easy to compare the costs and to click to change your household supply to renewables. Green electricity comes from the renewable sources of wind, rivers, waves and sun.

A few years ago green energy often cost more than the regular suppliers. As more and more people change over to renewables and more and more companies offer 100% nuclear free electricity the costs are coming down. You can see for yourself by using the comparison website.

It could be a good new years resolution to sit down with a brew and check out the comparisons and make the change – and tell your friends that you are now clean and green.   Those of us who cook with gas can change too, since most of the renewables providers also supply gas.   While the gas coming along the pipes is clearly a fossil fuel – if we buy it from a renewables supplier then that company is already investing in alternatives.

Sam says – ‘It seems that changing to renewables and away from nuclear/coal is something that really interests a lot of people.   There seems to be an increasing public concern about the dangers of nuclear and coal.

It’s never been easier to switch to renewables – so your favourite meals don’t need to increase CO2 or the nuclear waste dumps.’

Save

3rd Installment of the Springfields Archive. “Something is Wrong” The River Ribble Birthing the Nuclear Nightmare

Radiation Free Lakeland have been given access to files relating to Springfields Nuclear Fuel plant near Preston.  Shining a spotlight on Springfields is more important than ever with the Toshiba Westinghouse operation gearing up to produce “high burn” nuclear fuel for the much hyped “nuclear renaissance.”   Have we so sold our souls to the nuclear industry’s sweet lies that we no longer care to look at the radioactive waste going into the river Ribble, Clifton Marsh landfill, the Irish Sea, the air and our DNA?  This is from 1991 – nothing has changed apart from the accelerating and ever more entrenched nuclear juggernaught coming our way and the disbanding of Radmil the county council’s independent radiation monitors.  This article appears online for the first time…..

springfields-radioactive-waste-lancashire-evening-post-nov-22nd-1991

Lancashire Evening Post

 

November 22nd 1991

 

‘Natural’ radiation ruled out

 

A suggestion that radiation contamination in the Ribble could be due to sources other than the Springfields factory at Salwick has been refuted by Preston environment health director Tom Meredith.

 

At Preston Counicl’s environmental health committee meeting Counc Geog Haines said members needed to establish wheter some of the pollution came from natural sources such as granite or was washed down from Sellafield.

 

Mr Meredith said the Radmil monitoring organisation, the county council’s nuclear watchdog, had tested the Ribble and there was no radiation along it from granite. The elements wihc formed the source of the Ribble pollution could only have come from Springfields.

 

Referring to the Friends of the Earth report which sparked off the uproar over Ribble contamination, he said the group had done a “snapshot” sample in May and found levels unusually high.

 

The picture changed dramatically after May but the group had taken that one finding as an annual average.

 

It had also adopted its own standards without explaining the basis for them. Radmil’s findings were based on National Radiology Board standards and he was satisfied that the risk to health was minimal.

 

He added that the radioactive elements had a life of about 24 days and BNFL monitored in a way specified by the Government’s Directorate of Pollution.

 

But Coun Ron Ball said : “Something is wrong somewhere and we want it put right for the health of the people of Preston.”

 

Coun Mark Buckley was also unhappy with the situation. He criticised the level of monitoring done by BNFL and said he would not trust the company.

 

“Friends of the Earth is an organised campaigning group and BNFL has a position to defend. We are in the middle and have nothing to gain from antagonising either but we want to establish the facts.”

 

Chairman Coun Jacky Nagy said she was not satisfied that the standards laid down were adequate and at her request the committee called for an urgent top-level meeting to discuss the whole question of discharges from Springfields and the level of contamination in the river.

 

Councillors will be asking the county council. BNFL, health authorities and the National Rivers Authority to meet them to thrash out the problem.

A PLANT TOLD ‘PUT SAFETY BEFORE BUSINESS’

 

Lancashire County Council is to seek assurances that commercial considerations are not preventing lower radioactive discharges into the River Ribble.

 

Council leader Coun Louise Ellman said emissions of radioactive waste from British Nuclear Fuels’ Springfields plant must be the lowest possible.

 

She also called on BNFL not to pump increased amounts of radioactive waste into the Ribble.

 

Coun Ellman said today: “My concern is that we should always have the lowest possible radioactive releases. Arguments like the one BNFL is using, saying that the levels are below nationally accepted standards might well be true. But we should be seeking levels as low as reasonably achievable.”

 

REDUCE

 

“The thing I am most concerned about is the allegation from Friends of the Earth that BNFL has the technology to achieve lower and less damaging releases but that they are not doing it for commercial reasons. I think the key point is that if the technology is available to reduce the discharges then it should be used. If there are commercial reasons why that technology is not being used then the public should be told.”

 

The council has ordered a specific study by Radmil – the authorities radiation watchdog – to be presented to the next policy and resources committee on November 28th.

 

The report will make special reference to the Penwortham area near Preston highlighted in the Friends of the Earths report.

Westmorland & Lonsdale Green Party Oppose the Scrapping of Democracy for Nuclear Agenda

Dr Chris Loynes Westmorland & Lonsdale Green Party
Dr Chris Loynes Westmorland & Lonsdale Green Party

This excellent letter  published below was sent yesterday to the House of Lords by Dr Chris Loynes of the Westmorland & Lonsdale Green Party.  The letter outlines the many reasons why the House of Lords should throw out the plan to scrap democracy in order to accommodate the nuclear industry’s agenda.

Please feel free to make similar points in your own letters to be sent before Wednesday 3.45pm,  when the Lords will be discussing this.

Send to : Cumbrian Lords including

Lord Inglewood:  inglewoodw@parliament.uk
Lord Liddle:  liddler@parliament.uk
Lord Judd:  juddf@parliament.uk
Lord Rea:  reajn@parliament.uk
Lord Clark:  clarkd@parliament.uk
Lord Bishop of Carlisle:   bishop.carlisle@carlislediocese.org.uk

There are over 700 Lords altogether – you can try another email to be forwarded onto ALL members of the House of Lords     contactholmember@parliament.uk

This will also be debated in the House of Commons – but the urgent letter for now is to the House of Lords!

Dear Sirs

Re Geological nuclear waste disposal

On Wednesday the House of Lords will consider in Grand Committee legislation that will remove the right of Cumbrian residents to have a say in whether nuclear waste is stored underground in the county. I am writing on behalf of Westmorland and Lonsdale Green Party to urge you to consider carefully the removal of this right and to encourage you to argue against the loss of an essential democratic element in the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The Green Party are opposed to the further development of nuclear power but we recognise that the waste already generated must be stored securely and safely for the future. However, we believe this storage must be a transparent process open to scrutiny and engaging the public in a democratic decision about how best and where this should be done.

The 2013 public consultation into the siting of a GDF document states:

“Any planning application will need to take account of community views where they are relevant – but there is no requirement for community support inherent in the planning process itself.”

This is inherently undemocratic and shows a high level of disdain for those who would oppose GDFs, both locally and those who could be affected should water contamination occur. The consultation goes on to say:

“Through application of this voluntarism and partnership siting we would go further and require a demonstration of community support before development could proceed.”

How can community support for such a scheme be demonstrated if the decision is taken out of the hands of the local layers of government and placed squarely into the hands of the Secretary of State?

Cumbria County Council opposed the siting of a GDF in their area based on their careful scrutiny of the thorough scientific evidence; yet the local councils were swayed by the “community benefits” which is arguably tantamount to bribery. There are inherent dangers in the so-called ‘voluntarist approach’ especially since UKOOG has defined ‘community’ as perhaps being the sole tenant on any given site. But to abandon the democratic process completely, by adopting the process for a NSIP and exclude locally-elected councilors, county officials and removing the need for public consultation will result in the British populace feeling like they have had this GDF rammed down their throats.

We ask you to help sustain the rights of every citizen to be engaged in making this difficult decision.

Yours sincerely

Chris Loynes
Ppc for Westmorland and Lonsdale Green Party

Cumbria

LA12 7EU

Westmorland and Lonsdale Green Party Campaigning in South Lakeland for the General Election 2015

Take Action Today to Stop the Nuclear Dump Plans

Nuclear Dumping?  We Don't Need YOU! image by Logi Cal
Nuclear Dumping?
We Don’t Need YOU!
image by Logi Cal

On Wednesday the House of Lords under the Chair of Baroness Verma will be discussing  in Grand Committee in the Moses Room at 3.45pm the plan to push  through legislation that will remove our right, and the right of Cumbria County Council, to object to burying radioactive waste underground.  This would potentially be at levels where fresh water circulates.

They hope to do this by 2016 by adding geological disposal facilities (GDFs) to the list of NSIPs (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects).   NSIP  forces through the government’s plans for New Nuclear by denying communities the voice usually afforded to them via public inquiries.

The government hoped the Nuclear waste ‘problem’ was going to be solved by communities coming forward to volunteer to take the waste, now that plan has fallen by the wayside the government want to impose it on us by  designating it as NSIP.  The hard won protections of planning permission, listed building consent, scheduled monument consent and conservation area consent amongst others ARE NOT REQUIRED  for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.  This already seems to be happing with regard Moorside where 100 boreholes up  to 150 deep are being dug on what should be protected land on the say so of one official in Copeland Borough Council.  This total lack of scrutiny will escalate should Geological Disposal Facilities (including “borehole disposal” of nuclear wastes)  be added to the already undemocratic NSIP legislation.

Radiation Free Lakeland fully support the letter sent by No Nuclear Waste Dumping to the House of Lords.  We urge everyone to send similar letters to Cumbrian Lords and whoever else you can think of to oppose this diabolic plan.

The Full Letter is reproduced below – please use all or part as a template for your own individual letters.

LETTER TO LORDS – GDF/NSIP

Re:  Draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015

I am writing to ask you to consider speaking out against and voting against the proposed addition of radioactive waste geological disposal facilities (GDFs) to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) which will REMOVE THE VOICE of local and county councils and their respective communities from the decision-making process.

This debate is due to take place in The Moses Room, 3.45pm, Wednesday 25th February 2015 in The House of Lords.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has laid this draft Order with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on Jan 12th 2015.  The Order will bring certain development relating to geological disposal facilities (GDFs) for radioactive waste, and the deep borehole investigations necessary to determine the suitability of potential sites, within the nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) regime in the Planning Act 2008.  Where development falls within the NSIP regime, developers are required to apply for development consent from the Secretary of State under the 2008 Act.

This Statutory Instrument is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.  No date has yet been set for this issue to be dabated in the House of Commons. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found no reason to report the SI to the House.  BUT the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did find a reason/reasons to report it to the House:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldsecleg/102/10203.htm#a1

As you can read in the scrutiny committee’s report (above) DECC have not correctly interpreted the results of the public consultation 2013 consultation, entitled “Review of the Siting Process for a Geological Disposal Facility”, which ran for 12 weeks from September to December 2013. These proposals included the preliminary view that GDFs, and associated intrusive borehole investigations for the purposes of site characterisation, should be brought within the definition of NSIPs in the 2008 Act.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change FALSELY claimed that a minority of respondents were not in favour of these proposals.

You will also note the relatively small number of respondents to this GDF-Siting Consultation (719) when contrasted with the public response to the Consultation on Proposal for Underground Access for the Extraction of Gas, Oil or Geothermal Energy. The consultation ran from 23 May to 15 August 2014 and received in total 40,647 responses from individuals and variety of organisations – 99% of whom were AGAINST the proposals.

One explanation for this huge difference in public participation, is how much publicity there has been on Fracking – which the Government has actively promoted and has been a hot topic in the media for several years.

By contrast the public have been largely unaware of the plans for GDFs; including the distinct possibilty of a Deep Borehole Disposal method of burying canisters of Higher Activity Waste at depths of between 3 – 5Km.

The expressed public objection to Fracking was largely due to the scientific evidence, published in the United States that PROVED 5% of all initial deep boreholes FAIL. This finding, as reported in the Washington Post, “points to different culprits: faulty drilling and well completion techniques.” and has lead to widespread contamination of drinking water supplies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/15/study-bad-fracking-techniques-let-methane-flow-into-drinking-water/

A study published in 2014 conducted by Durham Energy Institute, Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, that looked at data from onshore wells all over the world found, “the percentage of wells that have had some form of well barrier or integrity failure is highly variable (1.9% – 75%)”

https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/refine/Publishedversion.pdf

The Nirex Study investigating the suitability of siting a GDF in Eskdale (which cost £400Million and included 70 exploratory boreholes) found that the geology and hydrology of the area was too complex. Despite the local councils of Allerdale and Copeland being in favour the scheme, which came with the financial incentive of, “community benefits” for agreeing to the so-called ‘voluntarist approach’ the Cumbrian County Council wisely DECLINED the scheme based on the sound scientific evidence that proved it was unsafe.

The 2013 public consultation into the siting of a GDF document states:

“Any planning application will need to take account of community views where they are relevant – but there is no requirement for community support inherent in the planning process itself.”

This is inherently undemocratic and shows a high level of disdain for those who would oppose GDFs, both locally and those who could be affected should water contamination occur. The consultation goes on to say:

“Through application of this voluntarism and partnership siting we would go further and require a demonstration of community support before development could proceed.”

How can community support for such a scheme be demonstrated if the decision is taken OUT OF THE HANDS of the local layers of government and placed squarely into the hands of the Secretary of State?

Cumbria County Council opposed the siting of a GDF in their area based on their careful scrutiny of the thorough scientific evidence; yet the local councils were swayed by the “community benefits” which is arguably tantamount to bribery. There are inherent dangers in the so-called ‘voluntarist approach’ especially since UKOOG has defined ‘community’ as perhaps being the sole tenant on any given site.  But to abandon the democratic process completely, by adopting the process for a NSIP and EXCLUDE locally-elected councillors,  county officials and removing the need for public consultation will result in the British populace feeling like they have had this GDF rammed down their throats.

The GDF has to remain secure and safe for 100,000 years and it is simply OUTRAGEOUS to exclude local government, and thereby the people that they represent, from planning decisions on a facility with such widespread far-reaching consequences for current generations and all future generations.

Involvement of the county council, planning inspectors, members of the public and the experts they may call upon is ESSENTIAL to provide the level of scrutiny that is required when considering a project such as a GDF.

In this instance it seems clear that the motivation behind the move to add GDFs to the list of NSIPs is fueled by a wish to divert democracy, rather than streamlining the planning process, which is what the creation of NSIPs was supposed to achieve.

We would ask the Lords to agree that the remit of the parent act (2008 Planning Act) is NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS to hand the responsibility of making such a HUGE decision over to the Secretary of State.

A scheme as crucial to the health and safety of our entire nation requires the full attention of every layer of government, after a public awareness campaign of equal size to the one that has promoted Fracking.

The waste DOES have to be properly put to bed, and the sooner the better. What to do with this waste is THE question for our generation. Fukushima is an indescribably catastrophic living nightmare, illustrating how lethal these radioactive poisons are – to all living things. Parts of the UK are still contaminated from the 1956 Windscale fire and the Chernobyl accident.

The consequences of entombing nuclear waste underground are largely unknown. Where this has been tried at WIPP in New Mexico, they had a criticality incident and the radionuclides reached the surface and leaked into the surrounding area. The collapsed ceiling at WIPP remains an unsolved problem over a year after the accident.

There is no guarantee that a geological disposal facility 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, or into the atmosphere and geosphere.

As far as we are aware, all of the research used in evidence to show the process is safe has involved computer modelling. It would be impossible to list all the variables in a computer program and the real life scenario could be very different, and result in radionuclide escape and transport to groundwater sources far quicker than predicted.

The REASON for the change of gear and approach in dealing with nuclear waste is because the EU decreed that ‘the UK must have a robust plan in place for the stored waste and future waste legacy’ to get the green light for the New Generation of Nuclear Power Stations (Hinkley C and Moorside)

To summarize, the outrageous reality of this sudden urgency to deal with the waste and bypass the planning consent of the local authorities is this:

1) The Research & Development in this brand new field is simply NOT READY and an artificial speeding up of the planning and consent process is unwise.  The technology to achieve this aim SAFELY does not exist yet. And the plans on the table rely on computer modelling that the programmers themselves admit the limitations of (this fact is published.)

2) A lot of the funding for the ongoing R&D is coming from the Nuclear Industry itself. There is a clear conflict of interests, given that plans to dispose of the waste will lead to the development of new Nuclear plants and the astronomical profits that industry creates.

3) The £400Million Nirex Study into a potential GDF at Eskdale concluded that THE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE AREA WAS TOO COMPLEX to safely site a GDF there.

4) Rather than ACCEPT the Cumbrian County Council’s decision to say NO to this plan, the government is instead proposing to REMOVE the powers of this planning authority by classing this activity as NSIP, thus excluding due democratic consideration at all levels of representative government – whilst claiming that it is in fact pursuing a ‘voluntarist’ approach.

In conclusion, we would ask you to VOTE AGAINST the draft Statutory Instrument that would make the GDF fall under the process of NSIP and slap democracy in the face.

We beseech you to consider that the only SAFE way of tackling the waste is if the BEST scientists, geologists and engineers were working on such a project NOT constrained by time or budget in a NOT-FOR-PROFIT setting.

We 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.

The recent experience of the NMP (Nuclear Management Partnership) private consortium (now sacked!) up at Sellafield PROVES that profit-making and safety DO NOT MIX and that system is wide-open to abuse. The private sector cannot be trusted to dispose of this waste, especially given how financially lucrative the contracts are and that cash grants are being made available to the tune of £10,000 to encourage companies to apply for Decommissioning work under the F4N, Fit for Nuclear, scheme.

http://namrc.co.uk/services/f4n/funding/

The government’s solicitors, Pinsent Mason have ALREADY hosted a “masterclass” in how to get a commercial application to join in decommissioning and waste disposal contracts classed as NSIP.

http://www.niauk.org/forthcoming-events?view=niaevent&id=1170

Yes, BEFORE either House has affirmed this Statutory Instrument!

This demonstrates the flagrant disregard the government has for democratic due process in it’s haste to wish to claim that it has a plan to deal with this waste, which will allow Nuclear new build to commence.

We ask you to intervene to prevent the progress of these plans which we feel sit outside of the law and are NOT in the best interests of the United Kingdom, it’s people, land and environments and all future generations.

Furthermore, given the inherent and dramatically demonstrated disastrous consequences caused by the existence of Nuclear Power Plants and it’s legacy of waste, we believe that no more should be generated, especially in light of advancements in the renewable energy sector, and the opportunities available to make our homes far more energy efficient than they are at present.

Regardless of opinions on nuclear power, the inclusion of GDFs in the list of NSIPs would be undemocratic, and unlikely to meet with favourable community feeling.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Martin of No Nuclear Waste Dumping

Eleanor Bull of No Nuclear Waste Dumping

*************************************************************************

ADDITIONAL READING

This list of concerns is from the ‘Rock Solid?’ report by Gene watch UK produced for Greenpeace:

  • Copper or steel canisters and overpack containing spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive wastes could corrode more quickly than expected.
  • The effects of intense heat generated by radioactive decay, and of chemical and physical disturbance due to corrosion, gas generation and biomineralisation, could impair the ability of backfill material to trap some radionuclides.
  • Build-up of gas pressure in the repository, as a result of the corrosion of metals and/or the degradation of organic material, could damage the barriers and force fast routes for radionuclide escape through crystalline rock fractures or clay rock pores.
  • Poorly understood chemical effects, such as the formation of colloids, could speedup the transport of some of the more radiotoxic elements such as plutonium.
  • Unidentified fractures and faults, or poor understanding of how water and gas will flow through fractures and faults, could lead to the release of radionuclides into groundwater much faster than expected.
  • Excavation of the repository will damage adjacent zones of rock and could thereby create fast routes for radionuclide escape.
  • Future generations, seeking underground resources or storage facilities, might accidentally dig a shaft into the rock around the repository or a well into contaminated groundwater above it.
  • Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface waters or permafrost to the repository depth, leading to failure of the barriers and faster dissolution of the waste.

Earthquakes could damage containers, backfill and the rock.

‘Nuclear Madness’ Protest at Carlisle Railway Station

 

Nuclear Madness protest held at Carlisle Station

 

Gallery of Pictures from today’s demo

10377537_10152837311864707_6801607989162648250_n10599568_10152837302089707_6553975034497653139_n

10407582_10205080365470562_2379625995976123195_n

1390530_10152837300844707_7256664963287572089_n

1528498_10205080337109853_4007250469068742241_n

 

MANY THANKS to everyone who came along today to sing “Trains and boats and Planes , are bringing nuclear waste to my home…”

We sang to show our solidarity with all the other groups throughout the UK in Wigan, Brixton, Bristol, Warrington, Lancaster and elsewhere who have taken part in this coordinated action to oppose nuclear trains.  Nuclear trains pass through Carlisle station often  twice a week,  three flasks carry radioactivity which is the equivalent of the Hiroshima bomb.

100 people also stopped to sign a letter to Cumbria and Lancashire County Council regarding the lack of independent radiation monitoring .

The letter says:

Dear Cumbria and Lancashire County Council,

 

RADIATION RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT

The North West’s environment used to be independently monitored by the council run Radiation Monitoring in Lancashire, RADMIL.

RADMIL was stopped a few years ago due to council cuts.  The Environment Agency often leaves monitoring and reporting to the nuclear industry

The nuclear industry and government’s new build plan includes:

Manufacture of fuel for new reactors. This begins with uranium hexafluoride shipped to Ellesmere Port, then to Capenhurst, Near Chester. Then on to Preston’s Springfields plant. Proposed new nuclear build on greenfields in Cumbria would also mean escalating radioactive releases from fuel manufacture.

This means radioactively polluting the River Ribble and Clifton Marsh Landfill in Lancashire. And in Cumbria increasing releases to the Irish Sea, Lillyhall landfill and previously nuclear free areas!   Nuclear materials are routinely sent by train and road and even by plane.

Given this escalation in radioactive emissions we urge you to reinstate regular and frequent independent radiation monitoring in Cumbria and Lancashire

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Name

 

Address

 

Demo at Carlisle Railway: From Darkest Peru to Darkest Cumbria – Stop Nuclear Madness!

From Darkest Peru to Darkest Cumbria - Stop Nuclear Madness!
From Darkest Peru to Darkest Cumbria – Stop Nuclear Madness!

Radiation Free Lakeland will be holding a demonstration and leafletting at Carlisle Railway Station on Monday 24th November from 11am to 1pm – Please come and join us 

This demonstration in Carlisle coincides with a week of actions at train stations throughout the UK  by groups and concerned citizens including in Wigan, Warrington Bridgwater, Chester  and Lancaster to oppose the continued transport of radioactive materials by train..

What Continued Nuclear Madness Means to the North West:

1. Drives the push for uranium mining worldwide eg. Peru (being aggressively eyed up) , The Grand Canyon USA, Niger, Australia, Russia

2.Uranium arrives at Ellesmere Port Dock by ship where it is transported by road to Capenhurst. It is enriched at Capenhurst and then taken again by road to the Springfields fuel rod conversion plant near Preston. During all these processes it in the form of a Uranium Hexaflouride

3. The Fuel Making Process produces radioactive wastes which are released to the River Ribble and dumped in Clifton Marsh landfill. Depleted Uranium is stored at Capenhurst.

4. The fuel is taken to nuclear reactors including Heysham which is being restarted despite “a crack in the boiler spine, a metal rod supporting the weight of the reactor” (Institution of Engineering and Technology).

5. Once the fuel is burnt (spent fuel) it travels by rail through towns and villages to Sellafield where it is reprocessed increasing the volume of waste x180. Sellafield uses over £30M of gas every year.

6. Spent fuel has travelled by plane from Carlisle airport which is still authorised to carry radioactive materials.  In a three year period, 1995-8 at least “8 shipments of nuclear fuel assemblies included passage by air from Carlisle Airport from West Cumbria to Switzerland” (Freedom of Information Response from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to RaFL 17th Sept 2014)

6. Next to Sellafield is 500 acres of beautiful farmland, hedgerows and ancient tracks. This land should be a buffer zone around the worlds most dangerous stockpile of nuclear waste. Instead the government plan to sell it to the same companies responsible for Fukushima in order to build 3 new nuclear reactors.

7. There is no “solution” to the problem of nuclear waste apart from distributing it to the environment. Not only to the air and sea but also to landfill. And then there is melting down radioactive scrap metal and selling it onto the open market. Finally, the proposal for deep burial of heat generating nuclear wastes.

CARLISLE: Radiation Free Lakeland will be gathering at 11am Carlisle Station and will be there till 1pm

WIGAN:  Manchester and District CND will be  gathering at 10.45 at Wigan Wallgate station and will be there until 1pm.

Previously:

http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-campaigners-protest-against-nuclear-7824334

Public Lecture: What New Nuclear Build Means to the Northwest.

From Niger to the  North West
Uranium – From Niger to the North West

 

Public Lecture: What New Nuclear Build Means to the Northwest.

Professor Robin Grimes, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, will give a lecture on 6th November at the Storey in Lancaster on “What New Nuclear Build Means to the North West.”

Radiation Free Lakeland will be holding a demonstration and leafleting outside the event from 5pm. The lecture begins at 6pm. Professor Grimes is an enthusiast of new nuclear build as a solution to climate change, despite there being no solution to the problem of dangerous nuclear wastes.  No solution to the profligate use of public money, militarism, chemicals, fresh water and fossil fuel propping up the most dangerous industry in the world.  Professor Robin Grime’s nuclear new build obsession is an epic diversion and distraction away from renewables and energy efficiency – which can actually deliver climate solutions in the time scales necessary.   Photographs leaked by a whistleblower show that Sellafield wastes have been neglected despite billions spent in public money.  Should nuclear experts like Prof Grimes be promoting an increase in the nuclear footprint….or researching, lobbying and working all out to stop and contain the existing wastes?

What New Nuclear Build Means to the North West:

1. Drives the push for uranium mining worldwide eg. Peru, The Grand Canyon USA, Niger, Australia, Russia

2.Uranium arrives at Ellesmere Port Dock where it is transported by road to Capenhurst. It is enriched at Capenhurst and then taken again by road to the Springfields fuel rod conversion plant near Preston. During all these processes it in the form of a Uranium Hexaflouride

3. The Fuel Making Process produces radioactive wastes which are released to the River Ribble and dumped in Clifton Marsh landfill. Depleted Uranium is stored at Capenhurst.

4. The fuel is taken to nuclear reactors including Heysham which is being restarted despite “a crack in the boiler spine, a metal rod supporting the weight of the reactor” (Institution of Engineering and Technology).

5. Once the fuel is burnt (spent fuel) it travels by rail to Sellafield where it is reprocessed increasing the volume of waste x180. Sellafield uses over £30M of gas every year.

6. Next to Sellafield is 500 acres of beautiful farmland, hedgerows and ancient tracks. This land should be a buffer zone around the worlds most dangerous stockpile of nuclear waste. Instead the government plan to sell it to the same companies responsible for Fukushima in order to build 3 new nuclear reactors.

7. There is no “solution” to the problem of nuclear waste apart from distributing it to the environment. Not only to the air and sea but also to landfill. And then there is melting down radioactive scrap metal and selling it onto the open market. Finally, the proposal for deep burial of heat generating nuclear wastes.

 

 

Professor Grimes : In the context of concerns over climate change and carbon abatement, electricity production via nuclear power plant is firmly back on the world agenda as a source of clean, baseload electricity.  With such a globalised industry it’s easy to forget that the UK has a history of pioneering discoveries and Engineering achievements in this field, and that ‘nuclear’ is a technology with which Lancaster has a special relationship as a result of the specialist research interests of experts at Lancaster University, the power stations at Heysham and its proximity to Springfields and Sellafield.  Robin will review the history and summarise the options for the UK in the future.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/public-lecture-what-new-nuclear-builds-mean-to-the-northwest-tickets-12064036859

 

More links:

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/sep/reactors-restarted.cfm

 

http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/index.php/A_wake_up_call_for_Capenhurst

 

Landfill: https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/category/lillyhall/

 

Studsvik; http://www.studsvik.com/en/Contact-us/UK/Metal-Recycling-Facility/

 

Geological Disposal: http://rocksolidexpo.blogspot.co.uk/

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-moorside-biggest-nuclear-development-in-europe

Kill the Bill – Infrastructure Bill Gives Free Rein to Radioactive and Chemical Polluters

Kill Cameron’s Infrastructure Bill

Please send letters to your MP,  your member of the House of Lords,  the press – Get Active ….and Kill the Bill!

Please do not rely completely on petitions such as the Greenpeace petition (which we have signed) it focuses on Fracking and leaves Nuclear out of the picture.  Equally do not rely on Radiation Free Lakeland – please write your own letters and do your own research as much as you can. But feel free to use our letter below as a starting point – even a line or two to your MP will make a difference.

Letter sent to our MP Tim Farron
Dear Tim,

Please vote to oppose the Infrastructure Bill currently being pushed
through Parliament. Radiation Free Lakeland know that you have grave concerns about the nuclear industry’s hold over Cumbria. This Bill if enacted would see that hold tighten completely.

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others have highlighted the Fracking
aspects of the Bill but it is extremely worrying that the Nuclear aspects
are effectively being airbrushed out of any criticisms. Frack Free York
describe the situation very well:

“The proposed Infrastructure Bill mandates that local councils relinquish
90% of their brownfield land to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).
Brownfield sites are previously developed sites that have become vacant,
contaminated but could be reused and include parks, playing fields,
allotments, woodlands, public facilities and village greens.
Once in possession of this land, the HCA will then be able to transfer it
to private developers along with any rights that we, the public, would
have had to it. Schedule 3 of the bill specifically states that…
…the property, rights and liabilities that may be transferred by a scheme
include… property, rights and liabilities that would not otherwise be
capable of being transferred or assigned

In terms of public easements (rights of use), public rights of way or
considerations for consecrated ground, the government will have the power
to remove any and all of these rights as they see fit.
These transfers are to take effect irrespective of any requirement to
obtain a person’s consent or concurrence, any liability in respect of a
contravention of another requirement, or any other interference with an
interest or right, which would otherwise apply.
Planning Consent
In addition to the above, private companies who obtains these lands will
no longer be subject to local planning regulations and consultation. The
Secretary of State will be able to give the green light to any development
without any local politicians’, residents’ or planners’ involvement,
simply by consulting a panel of two people.
This would provide an avenue for unpopular fracking projects, nuclear plants, landfill sites and other developments to be placed on public land without the public being able to object”.

There is no exemption whatsoever for any public land (apart from Crown)
contained within the Bill. This means that even our publicly owned
forests are under threat. Currently publicly owned land, which includes 500 acres of woodlands, hedgerows, fields and shore adjacent to Sellafield are being promoted as the site for dangerous new nuclear build. Government is looking to sell this publicly owned land and ancient rights of way to the same companies who built Fukushima.

To clear obsolete nuclear sites the nuclear industry is already dispersing nuclear wastes to landfill and is looking for further landfill “opportunites”. Government is also keen to “implement geological disposal” of heat generating wastes. Amendments have been made to the Infrastructure Bill that would give oil and gas companies rights for “passing any substance through, or putting any substance into, deep-level land or infrastructure installed in deep-level land”. They also allow companies to leave “deep-level land in a different condition from the condition it was in before an exercise of the right of use”. This could include retaining any infrastructure or substance underground.

Government says the right is for exploiting petroleum and deep geothermal
energy only and denied it applies to the storage of nuclear waste. This
is not reassuring at all as nuclear waste is already continually being
reclassified in order to allow “free release” from nuclear sites to
landfill or to the radioactive metal recycling plant at Lillyhall. Once
reclassified the waste is not labelled “nuclear waste” – a neat trick!
All in all the Infrasctructure Bill is a charter to give free rein to
radioactive and chemical polluters, and these polluters are increasingly
regulated by the industry themselves.

This government promised a ‘localism agenda’ and instead has delivered the greatest shift of power from local to central government since the days of Margaret Thatcher. This Bill is the ultimate expression of that shift of power.

Please kill the bill – all of it.

yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
address

notes:

Frack Free York – No Consent
http://www.frackfreeyork.org.uk/infrastructure-bill-fracking-no-consent/

Stop Moorside – Biggest Nuclear Development in Europe

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-moorside-biggest-nuclear-development-in-europe

Infrastructure Bill – Death of Localism

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/06/18/you-will-not-believe-what-david-cameron-is-selling-off-now/

Radioactive Landfill – no independent monitoring
https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/independent-radiation-monitoring-in-nw-what/

Pull the plug on officially sanctioned radioactive fly tippers
https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pull-the-plug-on-officially-sanctioned-radioactive-fly-tippers/

Polluters regulated by the industry
http://www.nnl.co.uk/news-media-centre/news-archive/nnl-wins-environment-agency-contract/

Facebook Group 

You too can have a Lakeland View Like this – All you have to do is Nothing!

Moorside from Scafell Pike - You too can have a view like this - just do nothing!
Moorside from Scafell Pike – You too can have a view like this – just do nothing!

Radiation Free Lakeland will be launching the report on 26th Sept at the
Beckermet Pylon Consultation from 1-2.

Please join us if you can – we will then walk for a few miles or so around the
‘Moorside’ site (actually called Greenmoorside).

The Cooling Towers for AP1000 reactors under construction in America and China are 600ft to 800ft high. This is many times higher than any existing
building in Cumbria and more than double the height of the now demolished Calder Hall cooling towers. The largest pylons for example would be 152ft.

Radioactively contaminated seawater would be drawn from the Irish Sea for cooling. Deposition from vapours and particulate matter emissions from cooling towers would fall on Lakeland. The visible vapor plumes
associated with cooling towers can rise more than 5,000 feet above the towers (ie above the Lakeland fells) and extend as far as 9 miles downwind.

The river Ehen meanders through National Trust land from Ennerdale to the final reaches at the proposed Moorside site. Fresh Water Pearl Mussels and
other endangered species are under direct threat as a result of the Moorside proposal.

NUGEN are disingenuously describing this beautiful 500 acre area of West Cumbria as
“a brownfield site.” We wonder how much more of Cumbria will be described as “brownfield” should Moorside go ahead?

Radiation Free Lakeland have sent the report to movers and shakers such as the National Trust, Friends of the Lake District and Cumbria Wildlife
Trust, all of whom are taking part in the Pylon CONsultation while Saying NOWT about the biggest nuclear development in Europe.

MOORSIDE RaFL Report 19.9.14

 

The Moorside Report: Europe’s biggest nuclear development

Cooling tower plumes from Moorside would reach 5000ft over Lakeland Fells
Cooling tower plumes from Moorside would reach 5000ft over Lakeland Fells

PRESS RELEASE

THE MOORSIDE REPORT

A new report has been produced by Radiation Free Lakeland, which outlines
the impact “the biggest nuclear development in Europe” would have on
Cumbria.

Visible vapor plumes from AP1000 cooling towers would rise more than 5,000
feet above the towers (ie 2000 feet above the highest Lakeland fells) and
extend as far as 9 miles downwind. Resulting precipitation would be from
seawater drawn from the Irish Sea, which is contaminated by Sellafield’s
reprocessing activity.

The river Ehen meanders through National Trust land from Ennerdale to the
final reaches at the proposed Moorside site. Fresh Water Pearl Mussels and
other endangered species are under direct threat as a result of the
Moorside proposal.

Spokesperson for Radiation Free Lakeland, Marianne Birkby said: NUGEN are
disingenuously describing this beautiful 500 acre area of West Cumbria as
“a brownfield site.” We wonder how much more of Cumbria will be
described as “brownfield” should Moorside go ahead?

Radiation Free Lakeland have sent the report to movers and shakers such as
the National Trust, Friends of the Lake District and Cumbria Wildlife
Trust.

MOORSIDE RaFL Report 19.9.14