Rusland Beeches – featured on Countryfile 20 years ago. 20 miles away from the Moorside plan as the crow flies

National Tree Week 17th – 24th November 1996 The Rusland Beeches are featured on Countryfile. Its not the success we hoped as the programme makers gave us the wrong date. I made cards to send out to all the National Park members asking them to watch. The beeches were’nt featured but what was featured was […]

via National Tree Week: page 38 of Beeches, Boreholes and Badgers — Wastwater Chronicles

“Population Mixing” and Moorside – No One Wants to Talk! WHY?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pG2MsFTDUAA77GJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIybzJkN2pwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMzYzAwYWU1MTFiZWY5OTM2NDFlNDFjMmM4ZTZlMmQyOQRncG9zAzYEaXQDYmluZw--?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dlego%2Bnuclear%2Bplant%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D6&w=676&h=507&imgurl=www.brickshelf.com%2Fgallery%2FMinifigTimes%2FLegoland%2FNuclear-Plant%2Flego-nuclear-power-plant-0813-004.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurobricks.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D85745&size=1006.3KB&name=%3Cb%3ENuclear%3C%2Fb%3E+power+%3Cb%3Eplant%3C%2Fb%3E+opens&p=lego+nuclear+plant&oid=3c00ae511bef993641e41c2c8e6e2d29&fr2=&fr=&tt=%3Cb%3ENuclear%3C%2Fb%3E+power+%3Cb%3Eplant%3C%2Fb%3E+opens&b=0&ni=128&no=6&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11pd685k9&sigb=12iof81st&sigi=134qdmenj&sigt=1171tmgha&sign=1171tmgha&.crumb=m1TNmkVP1zF&
#StopMoorside

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH QUIZZED BY TIM FARRON MP ABOUT THE PREDICTED RISE IN CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIA FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF MOORSIDE

Tim Farron has written on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland to the Director of Public Health Cumbria County Council Colin Cox, Regarding construction of Moorside and “Population Mixing.”

“Population mixing” is a red herring used to explain the up to 20 times (Maryport) and 10 times (Seascale) acknowledged excess in cancers on the West Coast of Cumbria. IF the government will not take responsibility for radioactive emissions as a cause of excess cancer then it must take responsibility for its belief that “population mixing” is the cause of excess cancers. The public should be warned.

Radiation  Free Lakeland has written to all the prospective parliamentary candidates for Copeland on this crucial matter of public health- not one has replied.

Correspondence with Tim Farron MP below

Our Ref: Birk004/52/jag > 13 > February > 2017

Dear Marianne

Thank you very much for having taken the time to attend my advice surgery  at Kendal Leisure Centre on Friday morning with regard to the recent petition work you have undertaken at Workington and your request to re-send a letter to Colin Cox who heads up Public Health for Cumbria > regarding population mixing and who takes responsibility for this.  I can see why this explanation would be a great cause for concern, given  the projected 20,000 jobs which are likely to be generated alongside the 4,430 people in Cumbria currently claiming either JSA or Universal Credit.  I am pleased to confirm that I have written to the Director of Public Health, Cumbria to ask, following the work of the Health Impact assessment  which was undertaken on behalf of the Moorside Health Impact Assessment  Steering group whether any conclusions were reached on whether the  Government and the industry should take responsibility for population mixing and cumulative radioactive emissions from existing and new reactors. I will write again, when I have received the response. ..

With best wishes

Yours sincerely  Tim Farron MP

9th Feb 2017

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:

A) Population Mixing?

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 Radiation Free Lakeland

Save

EDF Disses Nuclear !

Nuclear Power Nuclear War Everyday JFK quote

INcredible admission from a senior Vice President of EDF that nuclear is “dying”

This is from this weeks newsletter http://www.carboncommentary.com.
Industry news

Week ending 19th February 2017

1, EDF and decentralised energy. Les Echos, the French business newspaper, carried an extraordinary article from a Senior Vice President of EdF, the largely state-owned utility that will build the nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point in England. Mark Boillot contends that ‘large nuclear or thermal power plants designed to function as baseload are challlenged by the more flexible decentralized model’. He says that the centralised model of power production is dying, to be replaced by local solar and wind, supplemented by batteries and intelligent management of supply and demand. Not only will this be cheaper in the long run but customers are actually prepared to pay more for solar electricity and actively work to reduce usage at times of shortage. His conclusion is that ‘the traditional model must adapt to the new realities, thus allowing the utilities to emerge from …hypercentralized structures in a world that is becoming more and more decentralized’. In most jurisdictions Mr Boillot would have been asked to clear his desk. What will EdF do about one of its most senior people openly forecasting the end of the large power station as it tries to raise the ten billion Euros necessary to pay for its share of Hinkley?

INTO ETERNITY…IN PRESTON

onkolo1

Radiation Free Lakeland’s Marianne Birkby is honoured to be invited to speak at the next Mystery Tea House film showing in Preston. …‘Into Eternity’ organised by REAL, Friends of the Earth and Beautiful Planet

This eye opening film is of more relevance to Preston and the North West than we are being led to believe.   The film will be shown on 24th February at 7pm

Plans for the biggest nuclear power development in Europe on the West Coast of Cumbria, Geological Dumping of Nuclear Waste under the Lake District and the risks of fracking  just five miles from the worlds first nuclear fuel manufacturing plant will be discussed.

What has the planned geological dump for nuclear wastes in Finland got to do with Preston? More than you think!!

Hope to see you there!

Open Letter to All Copeland Candidates

toxic_love_sm.jpg

Toxic Love – Image by Andy Liepzig

The following letter was published in the Whitehaven News today.  It is a question we have asked repeatedly…

An Open Letter to All the Candidates in the Copeland By Election

Radiation Free Lakeland are a campaign group for nuclear safety with many supporters in West Cumbria.   Last September the science correspondents of all the national newspapers reported on the release of a new report which should concern all the Copeland candidates.

Since the 1980s there have been concerns that nuclear plants were causing leukaeimia in children after disease rates were found to be up to 20 times greater than the national average in communities like Seascale and Maryport

On 30th September 2016 the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) said there was no evidence that it was nuclear power plants themselves which were behind the increase, as, they said, the radioactive emissions “are too low.”

Instead, they said it was more likely that the large influx of people who moved to rural areas to staff the plants had brought in a mystery virus, which had triggered cancer in the children of local populations. They call this “population mixing.” Historically this was rather less of an increase than that which is being proposed now for Moorside which makes John Woodcock’s carrot of over “20,000 jobs” (Cumbria has 4000 receiving JSA or Universal Credit ) more of a threat than a promise.

How likely is it that previous governments would have knowingly instigated an increase of up to 20 times the national average of childhood leukaemia in Cumbria? Anyone who has been through their child being diagnosed with leukaemia knows the heartache and that their lives and the lives of their whole family and network of friends will be changed forever, whatever the outcome. What on earth could be worth even the risk of one child having leukaemia?   In the 1950’s it was the special relationship with America and the Manhattan Project which drove the nuclear industry. One of the key scientists in the Manhattan Project was Dr John Gofman who described the licensing of new nuclear power plants as “premeditated murder” and said that there is evidence of harm to DNA “all the way down to the lowest doses” of radiation.   The reason we are told nuclear is “necessary” today is to provide so called “low carbon” electricity. Really? Even the CEO of the National Grid Steve Holliday says that the idea of large coal fired or nuclear power stations for “baseload” power is “outdated.”

Any MP for Copeland, host of the already intolerably dangerous “nuclear heartland’ is tasked not only with protecting the wider population but also West Cumbrians.

We would like to ask you the following question relating to the local population:

QUESTION: COMARE, and 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 rural local population.   Do you think that government must take responsibility for this view and inform the local community to expect an increase in childhood leukeamia following the construction of the planned nuclear facility at Moorside?

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

Radiation Free Lakeland

References:

Incidence of Increased Cancers

https://archive.org/details/op1278204-1001

COMARE and Childhood Leukaemia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/30/childhood-leukaemia-probably-caused-by-mystery-virus-raising-hop/

National Grid – Nuclear is Outdated

http://energypost.eu/interview-steve-holliday-ceo-national-grid-idea-large-power-stations-baseload-power-outdated/

Save

Hey TOSHIBA and Co..Can the UK survive fracking in the vicinity of nuclear sites?

Fylde fracking

The following article was first published on Sisco Media 29th January 2017…

Question: Is it possible that by shining a light on nuclear we could also scupper fracking?

Eyes on Fylde Fracking AND Nuclear

In October the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, overruled a decision by Lancashire County Council and said that Cuadrilla could frack at Little Plumpton, near Preston against the wishes of the local council.  Fracking campaigners are now bravely taking non-violent direct action on the front line. Cuadrilla’s plan is to drill down thousands of feet into the rock and take samples prior to full on fracking. Anti-nuclear campaigners have also fought fracking these last few years, for very good reason.  The government halted all onshore fracking operations in 2011 over concerns at earth tremors after fracking at the Preese Hall site in Lancashire, which were attributed to Cuadrilla’s operations there.  Preese Hall is six miles away from the world’s first and probably biggest nuclear fuel production plant, Springfields in Preston.  Little Plumpton is a mere five miles away.

Proximity of Nuclear Fuel Plant to Frack Sites

In October 2014 architect Maureen Kelly wrote to the then Energy and Climate Change Minister, Edward Davey, to raise concerns regarding the proximity of fracking sites to nuclear establishments and requested that no fracking sites be located within 50 miles of any nuclear establishment. Cuadrilla’s proposed frack site of Little Plumpton is just 5.33 miles from Springfields nuclear fuel fabrication plant.

Fylde fracking

Radioactive Risks of Fracking and Nuclear

At Little Plumpton, back in 2014 when the site was being eyed-up by the fracking industry, anti-nuclear campaigners joined with anti-fracking campaigners in a protest camp. There were even art and science workshops on the radioactive risks of fracking and nuclear.  Of these two extreme energy industries, Jonathon Porritt has commented:

“Anyone serious about a genuinely sustainable energy strategy for the UK should be as implacably opposed to fracking as they are to the idea of new nuclear power stations. When these twin horrors of our wholly unsustainable energy legacy are put together, in close juxtaposition, we should all be up in arms.”

Deep down in the earth where Cuadrilla plan to frack for shale gas at Little Plumpton there’s a lot of radioactivity.  The technical term is NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM). The decay of Thorium 232 and Uranium 238 to Radon, Radium and Polonium, drives the earth’s natural processes, but it’s best left in the ground where it belongs.

Nuclear Power meanwhile deliberately mines the earth’s most radioactive material for fuel.  All the links in the nuclear fuel chain generate radionuclides of a kind and scale not seen in nature.  The releases increase when the reactor is refuelled, or when accidents happen. Releases to air include Tritium, Americium, Krypton, Xenon and Radioactive Carbon. Releases to water and air from Sellafield reprocessing include Plutonium, Cesium, Technetium and Strontium 90.

No Independent Monitoring of Radioactive Emissions

In 2015 Radiation Free Lakeland wrote to all members of Lancashire’s Development Control Committee urging them to oppose the two applications for fracking in Lancashire at Little Plumpton and at Roseacre Wood, both within spitting distance of the Springfields Nuclear Fabrication plant near Preston.  RaFL’s letter said:

“Both Lancashire and Cumbria already have an intolerable burden of accumulating radioactive wastes from the nuclear industry without adding fracking wastes to the mix. People in Cumbria and Lancashire ask that these two county councils get together to reinstate independent radiation monitoring. There is already an escalation of risk to the public with:

  1. Proposed accelerated imports of Uranium Hexaflouride for new nuclear reactors.
  2. Uranium Enrichment at Capenhurst in Cheshire Capenhurst in Cheshire
  3. Fuel manufacture at Springfields in Preston Fuel Manufacture at Springfields
  4. At each stage there is dispersal of radioactive waste to the environment: to air, to landfill to watercourses eg the River Ribble

“We ask that Lancashire County Council take responsibility and

  • Refuse all applications for fracking
  • Reintroduce independent radioactive monitoring in Lancashire of the kind Lancashire County Council (Radiation Monitoring in Lancashire) did up until it was scrapped due to Council cuts a few years ago.”

To their credit Lancashire County Council did listen and take on board the warnings and opposition from local people and stopped Cuadrilla in their tracks.  For this decision then to be overturned by the Communities Secretary is reprehensible.

Our request for the reintroduction of radiation monitoring was dismissed.

Andrew Smith, BSc., PhD., M.Chem.A., C.Sci., C.Chem., M.R.S.C.  from Lancashire County Council 
County Scientific Service stated:

“The decision to discontinue radiation monitoring was taken about three years ago 
by the Lancashire Chief Environmental Health Officers group. This was mainly due to budgetary pressure and the recognition that the background levels of radiation were very well established.   It was also decided that the remaining equipment would be held by Lancashire
 County Scientific Services and maintained in good working order in case it might
 assist in the recovery phase of an nuclear incident.   As the pressures on budgets have not eased I cannot see RADMIL being reinstated in the foreseeable future.”

Virtual Black Out

The explorative (in the UK) fracking industry’s dangerous credentials have been well spotlighted by NGOs for several years. Meanwhile over the same period the long entrenched nuclear industry has been gearing up its activity in a virtual blackout. Many of the young fracking activists at the Preston New Road 2014 protest camp had never heard of Springfields (five miles away) or Sellafield – the front and back end of the nuclear chain.  At the front end, Uranium is ripped out of the ground in eg. Peru, Kazakhstan, Canada and Africa.

Martyn Lowe of Close Capenhurst Close Capenhurst tells us that “boats send this dangerous raw material of uranium to Urenco at Capenhurst in Cheshire, to be enriched (near proposed fracking sites ).”  Enriched uranium is then taken in the form of an incredibly dangerous gas Uranium Hexaflouride on to Springfields, near Preston, where it is turned from gas to powder and so on into fuel rods.   The Springfields site has said that:

“Processing several thousand tonnes of uranium a year, UK Fuel Business, based at Springfields has the experience and technology to manufacture fuel for all major designs of nuclear reactor across the globe.  UK Fuel Business has produced fuel for all of Britain’s nuclear power stations as well as fuel and intermediate uranium products for overseas customers”.

A Big Deal

This incredibly dangerous activity is set to explode at Springfields with the plan to provide untested “high burn” fuel for  “dangerous” and “not-fit-for-purpose” new reactors. The operators of Springfields, Westinghouse (bought out by the financially downward-spiralling Toshiba ) have signed a 150-year lease with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.  Maybe it is no accident that there is a lack of attention being directed to the first plant in the world to make nuclear fuel also being the first place in the North West to be under direct threat of fracking.  Inevitably, waste from Springfield’s spent fuel, once burned in reactors, will end up at Sellafield “reprocessing” site . Here profligate amounts of fossil fuel are used: over £30M a year on gas.

Shine a Light on Nuclear to Stop Fracking in the UK?

The reasons to shine a light on the nuclear industry are many, not least the certain danger posed to us all by the prospect of increased seismic activity in this area of the North West which houses Sellafield, Trident, Heysham, Springfields and Capenhurst. Maybe it is a very good  time for mainstream NGOs to look to their anti-nuclear roots in the UK, and to shine the media light on nuclear.

You never know, in the process this might just put the much needed brakes on both fracking AND the nuclear industry

 

 

Footnotes:

Petition:Lock the Gate on Drigg!

Petition:Stop Moorside!

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

 

There is a change coming ….

The following article is from Left Foot Forward

There is a change coming – the nuclear dinosaurs have had their day….

 ———————————-

“Why I’m standing for the Green Party in Copeland

A progressive alliance is impossible under these circumstances

On Friday 13 January the Green Party announced it would stand a candidate in the Copeland by-election, a decision reached by the local party. Within minutes of the announcement onlookers on social media questioned why there was apparently no progressive alliance for the seat.

This built to a crescendo when Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, spoke about the benefits of progressive alliances at the Fabian Society New Year conference the next day.

Wasn’t it hypocritical of Jonathan to be promoting the concept of an electoral pact while his party stood against them, Labour activists said? In my opinion, absolutely not.

There are many things that a progressive alliance might be, but it is not simply the Greens standing down. On the contrary, it’s about standing up for what we believe and especially for a fair voting system in which every vote counts.

Any serious electoral alliance in which the Greens might participate has to put that centre stage, and there has to be a clear and active commitment to working for it by all involved.

Let’s examine the facts a bit closer. Despite Jonathan and Caroline Lucas making it clear that Greens are always open to talking, no-one from Copeland Labour reached out to ask us not to stand, or to back their candidacy. Neither, for that matter, did the West Cumbria Liberal Democrats.

So why aren’t the Greens taking the moral high ground and demonstrating how an alliance might work? Well, we considered it. Many members were conflicted about potentially splitting the progressive vote, so it came down to a few key issues.

First and foremost is the elephant in the room – nuclear. A lot of misinformation has been spread about the state of nuclear power in Copeland. While many are suggesting an anti-nuclear stance will hurt jobs in the region, news outlets including the BBC keep suggesting there is currently an active nuclear power plant in Cumbria. Neither are true.

No nuclear power is generated in Cumbria. In fact Sellafield is home to Windscale – the worst nuclear disaster ever to have occurred in the UK. Since the accident in 1957 a decommissioning process has been under way.

The site is home to extremely dangerous waste materials and will provide employment for hundreds of years. No matter how green anyone is, it simply isn’t possible to ‘close’ Sellafield, as some scaremongers pretend.

Distant commentators seem to think the residents of Copeland have a romantic love affair with nuclear power. Obviously given the above, they don’t. However, and despite what has happened at Windscale, there are plans for a new nuclear power plant at Moorside – part of the Sellafield site (n.b. not “Moorfield”, as both Andrew Marr and Jeremy Corbyn said on Marr’s show).

The Moorside planning process has been blighted with incompetence and the project, NuGen, is scrambling around for new investors with the new plant in jeopardy. Even the local Labour council leader has said it can’t support the project without more investment in infrastructure for the site.

Of course, there are also the very legitimate Green reasons for opposing new nuclear power. There are massive public health risks if the plant were to fail (as Copeland knows all too well), from the radiation any nuclear plant will produce, and there is the matter of disposing of highly toxic waste.

Then there is the fact UK peak energy use has been in decline since 2007, and the national grid may well not need the additional power by the time any power plant does come online – in the mid-2020s at the earliest. This point is bolstered by the fact we could, and should, instead be focusing on making buildings more efficient.

And finally there is the fact there are better renewable alternatives capable of bringing more jobs to the region: Tidal Lagoon Power – the company behind the new tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay – has already carried out much of the preliminary work necessary in establishing a similar project in West Cumbria.

I hope you can see that an anti-nuclear stance isn’t quite the suicidal move the mainstream media are suggesting. And yet despite this, Jeremy Corbyn has apparently abandoned his anti-nuclear position, and the Labour message is that they love nuclear power. The Liberal Democrats have also given new nuclear power in Cumbria their blessing.

Under such circumstances, it is simply impossible for the Greens to ally with either party.

The nuclear issue aside, we obviously have areas of agreement with both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Chief is to save West Cumberland Hospital from losing vital departments such as its consultant-led maternity ward.

North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust has been in a pretty dire financial situation for some time – the situation is very distressing and the only solution is funding.

So is it wrong to stand a candidate when so much is at stake with the local hospital Again, in my opinion, sadly not. Jamie Reed’s record of defending local services is pretty poor. I do not see the election of a new Blairite Labour MP in Copeland as a guarantee we won’t see the situation continue to worsen.

Much of the groundwork for what we are now seeing happen to the NHS was laid by the Labour government that Jamie Reed ardently supported during his first term as an MP for the constituency.

To return to the beginning: Labour activists seem to think we should simply stand aside. A number have mocked the Greens, sniggering at the size of our parliamentary representation and joking that they’ll lose ‘tens and tens of votes’ to us. We are, apparently, Schrödinger’s party: simultaneously so irrelevant that no-one should care what we do, while also irresponsible for splitting the progressive vote.

My belief is that under such circumstances, we had no choice but to stand. In the vein of seeking a progressive alliance, I am afraid to say we have to be cruel to be kind.

And if Labour lose the seat by a margin smaller than the number of seats we gain, maybe they will start taking us, and a progressive alliance, seriously. If we had decided to stand aside, no-one would have noticed or cared.

This is why I voted for us to stand in Copeland, and I was proud to be among an overwhelming majority of fellow members of my local party. If you live in Copeland, I hope I can convince you to vote Green on 23 February.”

Jack Lenox is Green Party candidate for Copeland

Save

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