“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

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

 

Beware of the Bull on World Cancer Day

world-cancer-day-february-4th-2017
Information from Jean McSorley’s excellent book: Living in the Shadow

workington-4th-feb-2017

It was World Cancer Day yesterday.  Supporters of a Radiation Free Lakeland went along to Workington to collect signatures on a letter to the director of Public Health in Cumbria.  The letter asked Colin Cox for a reply to the hundreds of letters already written questioning the government’s assertion that the influx of construction workers for Drigg, Calder Hall and Sellafield has caused the “excess” (up to 10X the national average) cancers in Cumbria.  As one person put it to me : “so does this mean that the government  is saying it is  workers coming into build cancer factories that has made a virus causing cancer rather than the cancer factories themselves”   Quite.  The “virus” of course is a “mystery virus.”

We have asked Colin Cox if he A.  Agrees with government that population mixing is the cause of the “excess” of childhood leukaemia in areas of Cumbria

Or

B. Agrees 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”

beware-of-the-bull
Sellafield – “Beware of the Bull”

After speaking to people in Workington yesterday and collecting more signatures to add to the hundreds already sent to the Director of Public Health, we went for a walk.

Later, six of us walked the length of the Moorside site from St Bridgets Church, Beckermet to Sellafield.  We didnt have any banners or even rucksacks, we were dressed for eg.going for a stroll round Beatrix Potter’s Hill Top farm.  Nevertheless we were stopped twice by armed police on a public path and cyclepath.  The first encounter was with two police on foot who caught us up as we were walking away from Sellafield on a public footpath.  They asked a few times what we were doing – When we asked why would they want to know that we had been to look at the plaque remembering the Windscale fire, they replied “because of the world situation.”   We all thought – ‘so you want to make the world situation worse by doubling Sellafield?’  – but we didnt say it.    One of the people with us was a journalist.  Journalists have the right to go about their business unhindered by the police – the police still took his details though.   On the way back as we neared Old St Bridgets Church at Beckermet there was a police 4WD blocking the route.  This was different police who said “I believe you have talked to our colleagues”  these police seemed a bit more narky and asked another one of our group for their name – they refused.   The Civil Nuclear Police are ALREADY treating Moorside like a licensed nuclear installation and intimidating people.  Some of the ancient footpaths across this land of ancient historic significance have already been trashed, for example the remnant of Sellafield Tarn and the Tarn Cottage are now inaccessible.    How far this militaristic shadow (guarding cancer factories “population mixing” or radioactive emissions!!!)  spreads across Cumbria is up to us all #StopMoorside

danger-flood-plain-moorside
“Moorside “- Biggest Nuclear Devlopment in Europe is proposed on the River Ehen Floodplain

Save

Childhood Leukaemia Letter to Whitehaven News

silent-spring-1000.jpg

In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book that launched the environmental movement.  The book was called “Silent Spring” and the very first page outlines the known impacts of chemicals and radiation on health and the living world.

“The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. This pollution is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues is for the most part irreversible. In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world—the very nature of its life.”  Rachel Carson – Silent Spring 1962

The following is a letter sent to Cumbrian press by a supporter of Radiation Free Lakeland.  It was never published so it is published here for the first time.

Dear Editor,

CAUSES OF LEUKAEMIA AND RELATED CONDITIONS

Returning to live in the UK after over 20 years living in France I am picking up where I left off back then on the causes of leukaemia.

Answers I had asked in the UK parliament on 11.1.1989 on the causes of leukaemia listed nearly 200 prescribed drugs, many chemicals including many pesticides and radiation as known causes.

During my investigations into the causes in countless cases over the years, which sometimes resulted in successful claims for compensation, every case showed there had been substantial exposure to a known causative agent. In all these cases there was only one where a virus was found present and in that case the sufferer had been prescribed a drug documented in drug books used by doctors in the UK when prescribing to cause the form of leukaemia from which he died..

The reaction of the medical profession was to protect their friends in the drug industry and blame the virus ignoring the drug prescribed.

The government disinformation that some unknown virus could be to blame for the cluster of leukaemia cases around nuclear power stations is a red herring to distract attention from the true causes.

Another bit of government disinformation is that without the nuclear industry the lights will go out. “If you repeat a lie often enough the people will believe you” – Aldolf Hitler. Most countries do not have nuclear power and France, the world’s biggest user for many years, is now in danger of its lights going out because of the many faults in its nuclear reactors and the French government is now finally coming to its senses and plans, along with other countries, to get out of the nuclear industry.

The UK government has not followed up on the advice given in a Royal Commission report in 1976 on the nuclear industry and environmental pollution and has not pursued all the renewable alternatives the report suggested.

Edward Priestly

Demo 4th February in Workington Stand Up to Cancer – Stop Moorside

Government Warning.jpg

The 4th of February is World Cancer Day.  Radiation Free Lakeland will be in Workington’s town centre, meeting at the Look Out Clock , Ivison Lane.

from 10am to demonstrate Opposition to Moorside and Opposition to Continued Dumping of Carcinogenic Radioactive Wastes into the our rivers, seas, soil and air.  Reading the press it seems that almost everything gives you cancer EXCEPT RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS!

We will have info to give out about our still unanswered questions to government and to the Director of Public Health in Cumbria about Population Mixing V Radioactive Emissions being the cause of “excess” childhood blood cancers.  Childhood cancers across the UK have gone up almost 30% since the nuclear industry started polluting.

Tim Farron MP has written repeatedly on our behalf and there have been independently written letters to the press about the government aligning itself with the view that a “mystery virus” due to population mixing from the influx of nuclear workers to a rural area is the reason for increased childhood cancers in the vicinity of nuclear installations.  Does the government intend to take responsibility for this belief and advise people of the risks of the proposed population mixing at Moorside and other new nuclear build?

Tim Farron Population Mixing letter 15th dec 2016.jpg  Or do they, like us, know very well that the increase in leukaemia has nothing to do with the pseudo science of a “mystery virus”.    The government and the Director of Public Health Cumbria have not answered our questions.

#Stop Moorside Letter to Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader

Dear Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party,

We are a volunteer group in Cumbria made up from all walks of life from scientists, tourist trade, doctors, nurses, teachers, and nuclear workers.

We oppose the planned Moorside nuclear development in Cumbria and feel that you may be underestimating the strength of feeling against plans for the ‘biggest nuclear development in Europe’ on 1,500 acres of greenfields and floodplain next to Sellafield.

When you appeared on the Andrew Marr show you missed the chance to condemn the project with the painfully equivocal response: “I want to see a mix, I want to see a greater emphasis in the long-term on renewables in the way Germany and other countries have done but we do have nuclear power stations, we do have a nuclear base at the moment and that will continue for a long time.”

So I would like to draw to your attention that the North West Evening Mail is running a poll on the issue. Unlike the official government and industry consultations this poll offers the option to say NO and 85% of the 2,321 people voting so far have done just that.

There is also an ongoing 38 Degrees petition to: “Stop Moorside the ‘biggest nuclear development in Europe’.” Despite the virtual media block on the resistance to Moorside (all media attention has been on the pylon route) this poll to Stop Moorside has attracted 11,769 signatures and rising.

‘Weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, fewer safety features’

Campaigners have raised funds to commission reports independent of government and industry. A report by the Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy makes shocking reading. Construction has so far commenced on ten AP1000s, six in the US and four in China, and another three are scheduled to begin soon.

Of these two of the ten have been suspended, presumed abandoned, and the other eight are all running several years late and hugely over cost. Not a single one has ever been completed.

But the EEEC report highlights a completely separate problem: the design is intrinsically unsafe.

A design objective of the AP1000 was also to be less expensive than other designs, by using less equipment than competing designs. The design decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves. The AP1000 has: fewer safety-related valves, fewer pumps, less safety-related piping, less control cable, and less seismic building volume.

Westinghouse claims that this enhances safety because there are fewer active components to go wrong. In contrast the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) says that “the Westinghouse AP1000 has a weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety features than current reactors.”

There is a great deal of uncertainty about how these passive approaches would actually work in practice, and since, like the EPR reactor proposed for Hinkley Point C, there are no operating AP1000s anywhere in the world, there is no operating experience to draw from.

‘Pinhole containment flaws’

Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, of US-based Fairewinds Associates, has repeatedly warned that the AP1000 design suffers from a design flaw which makes it vulnerable to a very large release of radioactivity following an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel.

In that event gases released from the reactor would be sucked through existing ‘pinhole’ containment flaws in the AP1000 Shield Building due to the ‘chimney effect’, potentially leading to the rapid venting huge amounts of radioactivity to the environment.

Cumbria already has the intolerable burden of Sellafield. Adding to that burden with Moorside would be genocidal, the school gates at Beckermet would be just 700 metres from the “biggest nuclear development in Europe” which would be next to Sellafield already the biggest and most dangerous nuclear site in Europe.

Please, please, set aside the siren voices that are working hard to convince you that outright, principled opposition to the Moorside nuclear complex would be a vote-loser in the forthcoming by-election.

Instead listen to the voices of resistance – which include many Labour voters previously encouraged by your rational, well-informed scepticism of the nuclear industry and its taxpayer-funded spin doctors.

All our local knowledge is consistently informing us that the Moorside monstrosity is widely opposed across the community, and that the pro-nuclear brigade represent a small if highly vocal minority. Your firm and outspoken opposition to the project would galvanise and inspire nuclear opponents, and give them a compelling reason to vote Labour!
Yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby, Radiation Free Lakeland.

 

 

Nuclear Madness by Teresa May #StopMoorside

Hansard, 11 January 2017
Prime Minister’s Questions
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-01-11/debates/4139811D-0756-4C58-827D-E00D1CCD970E/Engagements

· Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)

Q3. Westinghouse’s Springfields site in my constituency employs more than 1,200 people in highly skilled jobs manufacturing nuclear fuel, which generates 15% of the UK’s electricity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear industry is of crucial importance to the north-west economy? Will she continue to support the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations to guarantee jobs in the region? [908082]

· The Prime Minister

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that new nuclear does have a crucial role to play in securing our future energy needs, especially as we are looking to move to a low-carbon society. The industrial strategy that the Government will be setting out will have a strong emphasis on the role of regions in supporting economic growth and ensuring that the economy works for everyone. Like him, I very much welcome the proposals from NuGen and Toshiba to develop a new nuclear power station at Moorside in Cumbria. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy continues to work closely with NuGen and other developers as they bring their proposals forward.

UK Government Increases Insecurity at Global Nuclear Security Conference.

 

iaea-global-security-programme
IAEA Global Security Conference (pdf)

 

The following has been reproduced by kind permission of
Dr David Lowry from his excellent blog
UK Government increases insecurity at global nuclear security conference

A rare 5-day International nuclear security conference opened at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna yesterday, with the conference strapline reading. “Security Culture: One for All, and All for One”

IAEA secretary general Yukiya Amano opened the conference with words:

“Ensuring effective nuclear security is important for all countries, including those which possess little or no nuclear or other radioactive material.

Terrorists and criminals will try to exploit any vulnerability in the global nuclear security system. Any country, in any part of the world, could find itself used as a transit point. And any country could become the target of an attack. That is why effective international cooperation is vital….we can never relax our guard. Continued vigilance is essential as the threat evolves.

The IAEA will continue to play its part in helping to ensure that all countries are able to make the best use of available technology and to ensure state-of-the-art nuclear security.

Member States have made clear that they want increased assistance in strengthening computer security in the nuclear industry and related sectors…”

.(IAEA Director General’s Speech at International Conference on Nuclear Security: Commitments and Actions, International Conference on Nuclear Security; Monday 5 December 2016;Vienna; https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/speech-at-international-conference-on-nuclear-security-commitments-and-actions)

The UK delegation included several specialists who participated in technical workshops: these include: D. Shepherd; L. Bailey R. Hardiman; L. Young, M. Owen and V. Porter. No first names – or even genders – are provided in the 178-page conference programme, perhaps for security reasons https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/12/final_programme_web_upload_2dec.pdf)

But the British minister is known – her name is Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe- and her speech, rather than concentrate on nuclear security, disgracefully used the conference platform to try to cheerlead for the UK nuclear industry supply chain and nuclear new build. She made no attempt to consider the very serious implications for UK, or indeed or wider global security, of expanding the nuclear industry, although she made several meaningless assertions that “Our Government is fully committed to further strengthening the global nuclear security architecture.”
Her decision to present such a promotional speech, and the departmental or security service officials who drafted it ignorant of nuclear security implications, is very worrying.
Here is her disreputable speech in full:

UK statement to the IAEA international conference on nuclear security

From:

Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG

Delivered on:

5 December 2016 (Original script, may differ from delivered version)

First published:

6 December 2016

Part of:

Radioactive and nuclear substances and waste

Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister of State for Energy and Intellectual Property, delivered the UK’s Statement to the IAEA International Conference on Nuclear Security supporting the IAEA’s pivotal role in global nuclear security

Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG

Introduction

It was during this week in 1953 that the famous ‘Atoms for Peace’ speech was made to the UN General Assembly and the message in that speech is as true today as it was then. Nuclear power is an astonishing achievement, splitting atoms to create such enormous amounts of energy. It does, however, need careful handling and so we must ensure that it remains both safe and secure.

The UK has been producing nuclear power longer than any other state and has recently decided to proceed with our first new nuclear power station for a generation. With this commitment comes responsibility. That is why I would like to thank the IAEA for hosting this conference and to Director General Amano for his continued leadership on this topic.

The IAEA

The UK recognises that the IAEA plays a pivotal role in the global nuclear security architecture and in coordinating international efforts as new challenges and opportunities emerge.

We must ensure that the IAEA is properly resourced so that it can carry out this role, and that is why the UK is proud to be a leading contributor to the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Fund. I am pleased to announce today that we will make a further contribution of at least £5.5 million before the end of March 2017 to continue to ensure this important work.

This fund, alongside wider efforts by the IAEA with its Member States, has helped to deliver important tools and services in 2016. These included seven IPPAS missions; nine national Design Basis Threat workshops; assistance to Member States at their request; and two more publications under the Nuclear Security Series. We welcome these achievements but we must continue to make progress and we hope that Member States will join us in making further contributions to the Nuclear Security Fund.

The Future of Nuclear Security: challenges and opportunities

The threat we face from terrorism and crime is changing and evolving and we all share the responsibility of ensuring nuclear and radiological material is safe and secure. It is therefore vital that we prioritise our efforts on nuclear security and maintain our readiness to respond quickly and effectively to this threat.

At the same time, we must adapt to the changing face of technology; embracing the opportunities it presents and meeting the challenges that come with it. For example, cyberspace can present both a threat to nuclear security and provide tools for improving the systems and techniques underpinning nuclear security. It is right that we are focusing efforts in this space.

The UK is proud to have taken forward the commitments it made at the Nuclear Security Summit earlier this year on cyber security. We have successfully delivered two workshops on industrial control systems for international participants and completed a joint exercise programme with the United States. This work enhanced our combined ability to respond to major cyber-attacks on the civil nuclear sector.

We face diverse threats, and we need a strong, engaged and diverse workforce to counter them. An effective, versatile and global approach to nuclear security relies upon a diverse range of people, from all backgrounds and disciplines. I would like to emphasis this point, which is in line with the position I have taken in other sectors of the global economy. I see a major role for women in successful global nuclear and security industries. With this in mind, I’m delighted that the UK was able to fund the 2016 International Essay Competition on Nuclear Security to encourage newcomers into the sector. The winners were all women – coming from Singapore, Sudan, and the United Kingdom – and this demonstrates that valuable expertise is coming through the pipeline from all corners of the world and from women who have been underrepresented in the sector to date.

Ensuring a Sustainable Global Nuclear Security Architecture

The responsibility for securing nuclear and radiological material rests with us as states, and we need to ensure that the current nuclear security architecture is properly implemented within our home countries.

One area where there is collective recognition that more needs to be done is transport. Together there has been some good progress and the UK is committed to continuing this. We are pleased to have a world-leading nuclear shipping capability in the International Nuclear Services here at the conference. We have also hosted a follow-up International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS) mission earlier this year, and found it a valuable opportunity to share good practices. We encourage others to host their own IPPAS missions.

Our Government is fully committed to further strengthening the global nuclear security architecture. To do this we must maintain the momentum of the Nuclear Security Summits, building on the raised profile of nuclear security, supporting the central role of the IAEA and addressing new and emerging security challenges.

Nuclear security cannot be achieved unilaterally. At the international level, we should all work together to build on recent successes including the successful entry-into-force of the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. We are committed to promoting the full implementation and universal take up of this and other legal instruments that strengthen global nuclear security.

I also want to acknowledge the central role that the IAEA plays in coordinating our efforts to strengthen nuclear security which complement the global architecture.

Nuclear Renaissance

The UK Government’s reaffirmed commitment to new nuclear, coupled with the new emphasis on industrial strategy, makes this a prime opportunity for the nuclear industry. Of course, nuclear security will be vital component of this. Once completed, Hinkley Point C will provide up to 7 percent of the UK’s electricity needs and bring benefits to both the local and global supply chain. Beyond Hinkley, industry has set out proposals to construct five further power stations, with the potential to generate around 30 percent of the UK’s electricity needs by 2035.

In order to reap the benefits of nuclear energy and ensure it fulfils its true potential, we are taking action now to address the skills gap. We recently announced the National College for Nuclear, which is set to open its doors next year and aims to train 7,000 people by 2020 who we hope will go on to become next generation of nuclear innovators. The college will be complemented by our strong academic community and I am pleased that we have representatives from many of these institutions, including King’s College London, here at the conference.

Conclusion

We are at an exciting moment in the history of civil nuclear and this conference provides a prime opportunity to work together towards a stronger sustainable global nuclear security architecture that works now, and into the future.

Thank you.

Here is the wider international ministerial declaration issued on Monday evening:

International Conference on Nuclear Security: Commitments and Actions, 5-9 December 2016 IAEA Vienna, 5 December 2016

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/12/english_ministerial_declaration.pdf

MINISTERIAL DECLARATION

1. We, the Ministers of the Member States of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), gathered at the International Conference on Nuclear Security: Commitments and Actions, remain concerned about threats to nuclear security and therefore committed to continuously maintaining and further strengthening nuclear security through national actions, which may involve international cooperation, primarily through the IAEA, as well as through other relevant international organisations and initiatives, in accordance with their respective mandates and memberships.

2. We reaffirm the common goals of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, recognize that nuclear security contributes to international peace and security, and stress that progress in nuclear disarmament is critically needed and will continue to be addressed in all relevant fora, consistent with the relevant obligations and commitments of Member States.

3. In the spirit of the 2013 Ministerial Declaration of the International Conference on Nuclear Security: Enhancing Global Efforts, we welcome the advances made by IAEA Member States in developing and enhancing their national nuclear security regimes. We also welcome the positive impact of the Agency’s increasing nuclear security efforts, while noting that much more work needs to be done.

4. We underline the importance of keeping pace with evolving challenges and threats to nuclear security. We affirm the important role of science, technology and engineering in understanding and addressing such challenges and threats, and commit ourselves to stay vigilant and continue to take steps to confront, reduce and eliminate them.

5. We reassert that the responsibility for nuclear security within a State rests entirely with that State, in accordance with its respective national and international obligations, to maintain at all times effective and comprehensive nuclear security of all nuclear and other radioactive material under its control.

6. We call upon all States to ensure that measures to strengthen nuclear security do not hamper international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities.

7. We recognize that bilateral, regional and international cooperation can serve to strengthen nuclear security, and support, in this context, the central role of the IAEA in facilitating and coordinating international cooperation and in organizing Information Exchange Meetings with other organizations and initiatives on nuclear security.

8. We acknowledge and support the IAEA’s core nuclear security activities that assist States, upon request, in their efforts to establish effective and sustainable national nuclear security regimes, including guidance development, advisory services, and capacity building. Moreover, we encourage Member States to contribute to the Agency’s nuclear security assistance by sharing national expertise, best practices and lessons learned.

9. We recognise physical protection as a key element in nuclear security, and support the further development of the IAEA’s assistance in areas of importance to Member States such as nuclear

forensics, nuclear security detection architecture and response, information security, transport security, and insider threat mitigation, recognizing the need for appropriate measures to protect sensitive information in achieving this objective. In particular, we support the IAEA’s efforts to assist Member States to strengthen computer security, recognizing the threat of cyber-attacks against nuclear installations.

10. We welcome the entry into force of the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection on Nuclear Material (CPPNM), look forward to its full implementation, and encourage IAEA’s continued efforts to promote universalization. We encourage all Member States that have not yet done so to become parties to the Amended CPPNM and also in other international nuclear security instruments such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT).

11. We will continue providing the necessary technical, human and financial resources, including through the Nuclear Security Fund, in line with our respective capacities and commitments, as required for the Agency to implement its nuclear security activities and to provide, upon request, the support needed by Member States.

12. We recognize that highly enriched uranium (HEU) and separated plutonium in all their applications require special precautions to ensure their nuclear security and that it is of great importance that they be appropriately secured and accounted for, by and in the relevant State. We encourage the Member States concerned, on a voluntary basis, to further minimize HEU in civilian stocks and use LEU where technically and economically feasible.

13. We commit to maintain effective security of radioactive sources throughout their life cycle, consistent with the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. Moreover, we encourage the IAEA to promote and facilitate technical exchanges of knowledge, experiences and good practices on the use and security of high activity radioactive sources.

14. We commit to continue taking active steps to combat illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive material, to protect and secure all such material to ensure that it cannot be used by non-State actors in criminal or terrorist acts, and to continue efforts on our territories to prepare for recovering such material in case it has fallen out of regulatory control, taking into account relevant international instruments. We emphasize the importance of strong national legislative and regulatory frameworks for nuclear security.

15. We support the IAEA’s and Member States’ efforts to strengthen nuclear security culture and provide education and training opportunities in nuclear security, including by using national and regional Centres of Excellence and Nuclear Security Training and Support Centres, to ensure that the current and future generations of nuclear security professionals are well equipped to meet the challenge of ensuring effective and responsive national nuclear security regimes.

16. We welcome the consensus reached on the 60th GC Nuclear Security Resolution, and remain determined to build upon it. This Declaration and the 2016 International Conference on Nuclear Security will be taken into account in the consultation process between the Secretariat and the Member States on the IAEA’s 2018 – 2021 Nuclear Security Plan. We call upon the IAEA to continue to organize international conferences on Nuclear Security every three years and encourage all Member States to participate at a Ministerial level.

CUMBRIA NUCLEAR PLAN SLAMMED BY NEW EXPERT REPORT – only 9 days to comment on dangerous reactor design

cumbriatwinnedwithfukushima

Today a report slamming the new build plan has been handed into Cumbria County Council, The National Park Authority, Natural England, Friends of the Lake District.  The report will also be sent to the leaders of neighbouring European countries.

There is a CONsultation taking place on the AP1000 reactor design – we found out only by accident through social media – and this CONsultation ends on the 30th November (while all attention is focused deliberately on the pylons).

**Please use the information below to write in your own words to the Office for Nuclear Regulation.   Urge the Office for Nuclear Regulation to refuse a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) for the AP1000 reactors. 

PLEASE Make a comment in the next 9 days, email: New.Reactor-Build@onr.gov.uk

“BIGGEST NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE” SLAMMED BY NEW EXPERT REPORT

The new report describes the proposed Reactors in Cumbria as being:

  • Not fit for purpose
  • too great a risk to public health and safety
  • high, probability of Containment System failure
  • significant releases of radioactivity directly into the environment
  • post accident radiation doses to the public could be one hundred to one thousand times higher than those assumed by Westinghouse..

 Between the Lakeland Mountains and the Irish Sea lays the delightful village of Beckermet. This small West Lakeland village is holding its breath.   Not because of the proposed pylons across Cumbria, but because of what would be at the end of those pylons. Namely “the biggest nuclear development in Europe” just 700 metres from the village school.

A new report by Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy and written by Pete Roche has been commissioned through crowd funding by campaign group Radiation Free Lakeland.

Former US Nuclear Regulator Arnie Gundersen has described the AP1000 reactor design as “Chernobyl on steroids One problem identified by Gundersen is that during an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel of the AP1000 reactor, the radioactive gasses inside the reactor would leak directly into the environment, because the gasses would be sucked out the hole in the top of the AP1000 Shield Building in what is known as the chimney effect.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s “interim” approval for the AP1000 contains 51 unresolved “issues.” The new Generic Design Assessment process is being carried out in, what is described as, an ‘open and transparent manner, designed to facilitate the involvement of the public.’ Deadline for making a comment to the UK regulators on the AP1000 as part of the GDA process is 30th November 2016.

The Report Conclusions:

“The AP1000 advanced passive nuclear reactor design has a weaker containment, and fewer back-up safety systems than current reactor designs.

Its so-called advanced passive design make the reactor particularly vulnerable to a very large release of radioactivity following an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel, due to the chimney effect.

A thorough review of the AP1000 design in the light of the Japanese accident at Fukushima has shown that the containment is dangerously close to exceeding the maximum post accident pressure that it could withstand. Several ways in which the AP1000 design could lose the ability to cool the reactors in an emergency have been identified, and Fukushima has shown that a containment breach is possible, and that arrangements for keeping the spent fuel ponds cool are inadequate.

The AP1000 reactor design is not fit for purpose and so should be refused a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.”

QUOTES:

Clive Semmens nuclear engineer: “emergency core cooling systems don’t work nearly as well as you might expect”

Martyn Lowe of Close Capenhurst: “It is the difference between a belt and braces approach to safety systems, and what can only be refereed to as a hope and pray approach”

Irene Sanderson of North Cumbria CND: “Moorside has the unique combination of being: Too early – We have yet the problem of nuclear waste disposal and this is nowhere near solved; Too late – It won’t come on-line until after the global warming crisis has been resolved or has become unresolvable; Too new – There are years to go to iron out the problems with containment and other safety aspects; Too old – Nuclear energy is now just a stopgap until it can be replaced by safer renewable sources. Too costly or too cheap – How much should we pay to this company who created Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3, still out of control and acknowledged as one of the greatest manmade disasters.”

Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland: “Beckermet’s 1400 acres of greenfields and River Ehen floodplain near Sellafield should be a buffer zone, not a new nuclear sacrifice zone with untried untested reactors, this report exposes a special kind of insanity and it is called Moorside.”

FULL REPORT :ap1000-report

ARTICLE in THE ECOLOGIST: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988356/ap1000_reactor_design_is_dangerous_and_not_fit_for_purpose.html

Crowdfunding

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/marianne-birkby

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/StopMoorside

Stop Moorside Petition

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

Save

cumbriatwinnedwithfukushima

Cumbria Twinned with Fukushima

CumbriaTwinnedwithFukushima.jpg
 The Whitehaven News tells us that :

The company charged with cleaning up the devastated Fukushima nuclear site in Japan has taken a fact-finding trip to Copeland.

 Yoshiyuki Ishizaki, from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), visited the area last week to look at how the nuclear industry and the surrounding communities engage with one another.

And as an ambassador for martial arts, Mr Ishizaki took time out to attend a karate event with local club ESKK Martial Arts and Fitness Club at Whitehaven Civic Hall. He also visited The Beacon museum in Whitehaven.

“Ensuring openness and multi-way communication in a continuous manner is essential for restoring trust from the local community,” said Mr Ishizaki, vice-president of TEPCO’s revitalisation project, which aims to encourage people to move back into the area surrounding Fukushima, once it becomes safe following the tsunami five years ago.

“I will put this lesson into practice for local community development back in Fukushima. The Cumbria/TEPCO dialogue will help pave the way for TEPCO’s revitalisation activities.”

Mr Ishizaki addressed a meeting of the West Cumbria Site Stakeholders Group (WSSG), which scrutinises the nuclear industry locally.

 David Moore, chair of the WSSG, said: “We were delighted to welcome representatives from TEPCO to show them how we, as a community, hold the nuclear industry to account and apply scrutiny in an open, public forum.

“Mr Ishizaki gave a very interesting presentation and, having been to Japan myself in recent years, it was fascinating to hear how they are progressing both with the recovery operation and community engagement.”

And following Mr Ishizaki’s participation in its karate exchange, Peter Hinde, from ESKK in Whitehaven, said: “I think the group was very impressed with the fact that we had visited Japan a number of times and had trained with karate masters.

“The visitors seemed to enjoy the evening with us and I am sure the cultural exchange was extremely beneficial to our members and Mr Ishizaki.”

This is not just a fluffy feel good piece of propaganda.  It is cynical psychological warfare with an intent to force people back into radioactively contaminated areas in Fukushima , and placate Cumbrians into accepting ever more danger from the nuclear industry.

Three former executives at a Japanese power giant have been formally charged with negligence over the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant. The trio, formerly of Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), will be the first to go to court over the incident. A citizen’s panel ruled that they should face trial, forcing prosecutors to pursue the case.  in July 2012, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission concluded that the disaster was really no accident but man-made. It came about, the researchers said, as a result of “collusion” between the government, regulators and the nuclear industry, in this case, Tepco.  The collusion is ongoing and insidious and the bribery and corruption is working with Cumbrian apologists (witting and unwitting) for nuclear are playing their part in the unfolding nuclear catastrophe of which Fukushima is a part.  It is way past time to call a halt.

The Whitehaven News is dutifully playing its part in whitewashing yet another inhumane act of nuclear cruelty: “Fukushima’s citizens are having to live with the gross injustice of having lost everything to a nuclear disaster for which they were in no way responsible. Now they are being stripped of the meagre and inadequate support they received as they are effectively forced back into radioactively contaminated areas.”

Save