Government Believes that “Population Mixing” Can Seriously Damage YOUR Child’s Health – #StopMoorside

population-mixing-can-damage-your-childs-health

tim-farron-with-the-map-of-excess-cancers
Tim Farron MP looking at the Map of “excess” cancers  from Sir Douglas Black’s Independent Advisory Group 1984

Tim Farron MP has agreed to quiz  the Director of Public Health Cumbria on his failure to reply to our questions regarding Moorside and the health of children in the vicinity of the proposed Moorside reactors..

Dear Tim Farron MP,

Last May 2016 we wrote to the Director of Public Health along with hundreds of other concerned Cumbrians asking the following questions:

A Government Committee recently said that “Population Mixing” caused by an influx of nuclear workers resulted in “a Mystery Virus.” They said this is the likely cause of increased leukaemias near Sellafield. This view is rather undermined by the Sellafield workers having a Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. There are higher incidences of many diseases in the vicinity of Sellafield including childhood eye cancers and Downs Syndrome.

 Do you believe, like the government, that “population mixing” is the cause of the acknowledged and well documented excess of childhood leukaemia near Sellafield? Or do you agree with the co-discoverer of plutonium and uranium, Dr John Gofman that there is no safe dose of radiation? Which do you think the government and the industry should take responsibility for:

  1. A) Population Mixing?
  2. B) Cumulative Radioactive Emissions from existing and new reactors?  

 The reply we received back from Colin Cox, the Director of Public Health Cumbria was dismissive and we are still waiting for an answer to our questions:

“I am the Chair of the Moorside Health Impact Assessment Steering Group. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a rigorous approach to identifying and mitigating any health risks, and identifying and maximising any health gains, arising from this development. At its meeting this morning, the steering group agreed that the issue of population mixing will be considered within the overall HIA.

The HIA is due to be completed by the end of this year. I will not be making any public comment on this matter before this process is complete. I hope this information is helpful.

Regards,

Colin Cox

Colin Cox Director of Public Health Cumbria County Council”

Given that John Woodcock MP insists that Moorside would bring over 20,000 jobs to Cumbria, a county with 4000 claiming either JSA or Universal Credit is this more of a threat than a promise?   It seems to us that whether the well documented increase in cancers is due to an influx of nuclear workers or radioactive emissions, this is a lose-lose situation with regards the health and safety of Cumbrians.

We have written to an acknowledged expert and member of government committees relating to Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and Dr Paul Dorfman’s reply to us is below.

________________________________ From: Dorfman, Paul Sent: 13 June 2016 09:59 To: mariannebirkby@mariannebirkby.plus.com Subject: Re: Population Mixing V Radioactive Emissions. Govnt want their cake and eat it?]

Dear Marianne

Thank you for your letter concerning the key issue of childhood leukaemia in Cumbria.   As you may know, I served as Secretary to the UK governmental scientific advisory Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE), where we reported on this issue. I am also currently an advisor on radiation risk to the Irish Government Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and am an advisor to the UK MoD on the dismantling of the laid-up UK nuclear submarine flotilla. In other words, I am an acknowledged expert on radiation risk.

Regards future risk of childhood ill-health in Cumbria – I, like you, am of the clear opinion that the acknowledged significant increase in childhood leukaemia in Cumbria is associated with radiation releases from nuclear power plant.   However, there is no question but that the view of the key UK governmental radiation risk scientific advisory body – the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) – is that the Cumbrian childhood leukaemia excess is most likely associated with a ‘population mixing’.

In other words, COMARE, and hence the UK government state that the Cumbrian childhood leukaemia excess is due to a novel virus brought in by a large number of construction workers which then goes on to infect a relatively isolated local population who do not have a defense against this virus.   In this context, the UK government must take responsibility for this view. Thus the UK government must inform the local community to expect a potential increase in risk of childhood leukeamia following the construction of the planned nuclear facility at Moorside.

Sincerely   Paul   Dr Paul Dorfman

The Energy Institute University College London Central House 14 Upper Woburn Place London WC1HH 0NN +44 (0)7972385303 Founder, Nuclear Consulting Group http://www.nuclearconsult.com/ Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Nuclear Policy Research Fellow

____________________________________________________

Last weekend in Workington we collected more signatures to add to the hundreds of letters already sent to the Director of Public Health in Cumbria to again remind him to reply to our questions. We would be very grateful if you could pass this letter on to him with the following questions for which we are still awaiting a reply.

Which do you think the government and the industry should take responsibility for:

A) Population Mixing?

B) Cumulative Radioactive Emissions from existing and new reactors?  

 

Yours sincerely

Marianne Birkby

on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland

 

WORLD CANCER DAY 4th FEB- JOIN US SAY NO TO MOORSIDE and NUCLEAR DUMPING

government-warning

 

GREAT NEWS – TOSHIBA’s foray into nuclear ventures has resulted in them experiencing a gigantic financial black hole which means that their nuclear construction business is in tatters.

It is however way too soon to call time on Moorside as our nuclear obsessed Govnt will be pulling out all stops to stay with the plan …Toshiba was always going to pull out after construction of the diabolic reactors (Nuclear Engineering International 16th September 2014 Toshiba planning to sell some of its stake in the venture “within the first year of plant operations”).  

The South Koreans (KEPCO)  have been in talks with NuGen to try to keep the whole shebang going.

Also not in the mainstream press is the fact that Toshiba have a 150 year lease on the Springfields nuclear fuel site at Preston providing nuclear fuel for the UK and around the world.

Join us on 4th Feb in Workington town centre at 10am (at the Look Out Clock) on World Cancer Day to say NO to Moorside and Nuclear Dumping.  Bring Banners, Bring Yourselves – Join the Resistance!

We will have a letter for people to sign to Colin Cox, Cumbria’s Director of Public Health who has so far refused to answer our question.

Do you

A.  Agree with government that population mixing is the cause of the “excess” of childhood leukaemia in areas of Cumbria

Or

B. Agree with Nuclear power pioneer Dr John Gofman that “Licensing a nuclear power plant is random premeditated murder ….the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest (radiation) doses”

When we asked Colin Cox this question back in May 2016 we recieved the dismissive reply below:

“Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding health risks arising from “population mixing” during the development of Moorside power station in West Cumbria. I am the Chair of the Moorside Health Impact Assessment Steering Group. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a rigorous approach to identifying and mitigating any health risks, and identifying and maximising any health gains, arising from this development. At its meeting this morning, the steering group agreed that the issue of population mixing will be considered within the overall HIA. The HIA is due to be completed by the end of this year. I will not be making any public comment on this matter before this process is complete. I hope this information is helpful.

Regards, Colin Cox

Colin Cox Director of Public Health Cumbria County Council The Courts Carlisle CA3 8NA”

 

Our letter below will be available for people to sign on Saturday 4th February in Workington from 10am to 12noon at the Look Out Clock (or nearby)

To Colin Cox, the Director of Public Health Cumbria,

A Government Committee recently said that “Population Mixing” caused by an influx of nuclear workers resulted in “a Mystery Virus.” They said this is the likely cause of increased leukaemias near Sellafield. This view is rather undermined by the Sellafield workers having a Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. There are higher incidences of many diseases in the vicinity of Sellafield including childhood eye cancers and Downs Syndrome.

In the Eighties, the families of 19 children living within 20 miles of Sellafield took the site operators to court.  The children all had leukaemia.  They lost their case, the judge ruling that the radiation dose from the plant was too low to have caused leukaemia.

The Government subscribes to the 1988 Leo Kinlen theory, which suggests that exposure to a common unidentified infection through population mixing results in childhood leukaemia.  Prof Kinlen said: “This exposure is greater when people from urban areas mix with rural communities eg when construction workers and nuclear staff move into the Sellafield area.”  History is about to repeat itself.  The Government plans to parachute into Cumbria thousands of temporoary workers to work at Beckermet, site of the proposed “biggest new nuclear development in Europe.”

Dr Paul Dorfman, secretary to the UK governmental sceintific advisory Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE), an acknowledged expert on radiation risk, told us: “I, like you, am of the clear opinion that the acknowledged significant increase in childhood leukaemia in Cumbria is associated with radiation releases….However…the view of the key UK governmental radiation risk scientific advisory body (COMARE) is that the Cumbrian childhood leukaemia excess is most likely associated with “population mixing.”

“COMARE, and hence the Government state that the Cumbrian childhood leukaemia excess is due to a novel virus brought in by a large number of construction workers which then goes on to infect a relatively isolated local population who do not have a defence against this virus.”

“Thus the Government must inform the local community to expect a potential increase in risk of childhood leukaemia following the construction of the planned nuclear facility at Moorside.”

Nuclear power pioneer Dr John Gofman said decades ago: “Licensing a nuclear power plant is…licensing random premeditated murder.  When you license a plant, you know what you’re doing, so its premeditated….The evidence on radiation producing cancer is beyond doubt. It’s not a question any more:radiation produces cancer and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses.”

Do you

A.  Agree with government that population mixing is the cause of the “excess” of childhood leukaemia in areas of Cumbria

Or

B. Agree with Nuclear power pioneer Dr John Gofman that “Licensing a nuclear power plant is random premeditated murder ….the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest (radiation) doses”

yours sincerely,

Name

Address

 

 

BREAKING NEWS. ….as  we predicted the South Koreans have been wined and dined ….report in Utility Week ……

“South Korean investment could save Moorside
31/01/2017
South Korean investment in Moorside could help to safeguard the future of the proposed nuclear plant in Cumbria, New Nuclear Watch Europe has told Utility Week
The NuGen consortium which is developing Moorside is jointly owned by Toshiba and Engie. Toshiba announced on Friday it was reviewing its nuclear activities in response to a financial crisis, leaving a question mark over the future of the project.
“This is an anxiety but it’s one to which there is a solution, albeit probably at the cost of a little bit of time,” said Tim Yeo, who chaired the Energy and Climate Change Committee from 2010-2015 and is now chairman of the trade group New Nuclear Watch Europe. “I think what it will throw up is the possibility of bringing a new partner into the NuGen consortium”, he added.
South Korean utility Kepco was reported to be close to investing in the project in October, and in December the Times reported that representatives from the company had met with business and energy secretary Greg Clark.
“They’ve been a bit discouraged, I think, by the reception they’ve had in the UK,” said Yeo. “But my understanding is they are now talking to Toshiba about taking a stake… I think there’s no doubt that Kepco, with the full backing of the Korean government, is interested.”
He said Kepco’s involvement could delay the project if it insisted on using its own reactor technology as it would have to go through the lengthy Generic Design Assessment process. “That would set the programme back a bit,” he added.
“Going forward, we will revise the positioning of the nuclear business as our main focus business in the energy sector, and review the future of nuclear businesses outside Japan”, said Toshiba president and chief executive Satoshi Tsunakawa at a press conference on Friday.
The Japanese conglomerate is facing an undisclosed write-down amounting to “several billion US dollars” on the purchase of US nuclear construction firm CB&I Stone & Webster by its subsidiary Westinghouse. The plans for Moorside feature three AP1000 reactors supplied by Westinghouse with a combined capacity of 3.8GW.
Yeo said it is a “concern” that Toshiba is “obviously struggling to make any money from its nuclear activities”. However, he denied that the group’s financial meltdown is reflective of the nuclear industry as a whole.
He said there are “plausible explanations” as to why a number of nuclear firms have faced financial difficulties in recent years. “In the case of the EPR, the EDF project, those are associated, in my view, with the fact that it’s a first of a kind technology. The history of the nuclear industry over the last 50 years shows that first of a kind projects more often than not run into timetable and cost overruns.”
Earlier this month it was reported that Toshiba was seeking public financing for Moorside.
Author: Tom Grimwood,
Channel: Finance & investment

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.

Not Fit for Purpose – The UK’s Low Level Radioactive Waste Strategy

Radioactive Landfill Dumped in Cumbria from Scotland
Radioactive Landfill Dumped in Cumbria from Scotland and elsewhere

Sent today to the UK Consultation of Low Level Radioactive Waste Strategy.

The CONsultation  on dispersal of wastes to the environment can be emailed here:  NILLWStrategy@decc.gsi.gov.uk    by 21st April.  Send your opposition to dispersal of radioactive wastes and call for a moratorium on the dodgy concept of Decommissioning which has come to mean Dispersal.

Nuclear Free Local Authorities have sent an excellent reply 

Radiation Free Lakeland’s reply and Call for a Moratorium on the whole concept of decommissioning/dispersal is below:

RADIATION FREE LAKELAND REPLY TO THE CONSULTATION :

UK Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Waste from the Nuclear Industry

RADIATION FREE LAKELAND is a volunteer nuclear safety group based in Cumbria, with supporters worldwide. We oppose new nuclear build and the dispersal of existing and new radioactive wastes to the environment.

The purpose of this Consultation is

“intended to ensure that the strategy remains fit for purpose, reflecting significant changes in the nuclear industry and developments in the UK environment for the management of LLW to keep the strategy fit for purpose”.

Fit for Purpose?

  1. If “fit for purpose” means deregulating radioactive wastes in order to disperse them to the environment and clear the decks for new build, then Yes the strategy is “fit for purpose”.
  1. If “fit for purpose” means ensuring that radioactive wastes are contained and that the public are not exposed to ever increasing releases of radiation from polluted groundwater, air and consumer goods then No the strategy is not “fit for purpose.”

Cumbria is bearing the brunt of the nuclear industry and government ambition to clear the decks of nuclear wastes in preparation for more. Examples of deregulation include:

 

Radioactive Landfill: High Volume Very Low Level radioactive wastes have been deregulated to be reclassified as “exempt.” This led to Sellafield dumping 3 bags of low level and one bag of intermediate level in a Cumbrian landfill under the “free release” system. Lillyhall landfill was previously free of high volumes of man made nuclear wastes (previously licensed for small volumes of NORM) Sellafield was fined but the company responsible for allowing low and intermediate waste dumping has not been prosecuted as “they were not aware’. The same company, Energy Solutions is responsible for the “kitty litter” fiasco in the only operational high level nuclear waste ‘facility’ in the world – WIPP

https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/jamie-reed-mp-why-have-energy-solutions-not-been-prosecuted-for-nuclear-flytipping/

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/DOE-IG-0922.pdf

Radioactive Scrap Metal – tonnes of it released onto the open market http://www.ccnr.org/essay_radwaste_recycling.pdf in the only radioactive scrap metal “recycling” plant in Europe.

The operators Studsvik say : “Studsvik is working to the Government’s own nuclear waste hierarchy which aims to reduce the amount of scrap material going to the repository (DRIGG) , prolonging its life expectancy”.

Novel radioactive routes have been opened. Potentially radioactive metals are being dispersed to consumer goods, from tins of beans to children’s’ toys.

Regarding the escalating dispersal of radioactive wastes to the environment the Nuclear Free Local Authorities have responded: “Low-level waste management in the UK is in crisis. The total quantity of low level radioactive waste existing, or forecast to be created, is greater than the total amount of existing disposal capacity. The construction and operation of new nuclear power stations will only make matters worse – one of the reasons why NFLA opposes new nuclear build. The existing low level waste dump near Sellafield is virtually certain to be eroded by rising sea levels and to contaminate the Cumbrian coast with large amounts of radioactive waste at some point over the next few hundred years. The industry is managing to hide this crisis for the time being by dispersing radioactive waste around the country. Spreading around the UK radioactive waste previously destined to be disposed of in the engineered facility near Sellafield, is liable to increase the UK population‟s collective dose and therefore increase the risk of cancer and other health problems. Despite the volumes of LLW likely to arise and the future problems of coastal erosion at the existing dump near Sellafield, the Low Level Waste Repository Ltd (LLWR Ltd) hopes to eliminate the need for a second national repository and close the existing repository in 2079 by developing new routes for different types of LLW, to enable them to be diverted from the LLWR”. http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_UK_LLW_response.pdf

Radiation Free Lakeland say that the UK Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Waste from the Nuclear Industry is not only:

NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE but is OUT OF CONROL in the same way that the banking sector was out of control in the heady days of deregulation before the crash.

Radiation Free Lakeland believe the crash is already happening with increasing evidence of a spectrum of radiation linked diseases. While the industry runs a Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases for nuclear workers, increasingly the radiation is being dispersed to the wider environment where the risk is socialised. Meanwhile private companies chase lucrative government contracts to handle dispersal to the environment. Private profit, public risk is lent greenwash by for example the Low Level Waste Conference being held at the Rheged Centre in Penrith. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/rheged-please-dont-greenwash-increasing-nuclear-waste-dumping/#comments

MORATORIUM: DECOMMISSIONING = DISPERSAL TO ENVIRONMENT

Radiation Free Lakeland call on the UK government for a moratorium on Decommissioning. The evidence shows that decommissioning merely means the dispersal of radioactive wastes to the environment through a “dilute and disperse” agenda. This is unsustainable.

Sent on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland by Marianne Birkby