Skip to content or view screen version

International Day of Action Against the Root Causes of Climate Change

dissent! climate action group | 30.05.2005 21:02 | G8 2005


This is a call for anyone involved in resistance to nuclear energy to speak up on the 8th of July, in the way that you and your friends work best.You can do this in your home town, or you can plan something for when you come to Scotland this summer.

................If nuclear power is the answer, we need a different question...................

Hi

I am writing to you from the dissent climate action group...

The struggle against Nuclear energy is coming to a head, with world leaders beginning to take action on future oil shortages by recommending Nuclear as the way forward. Activists across the world have known for a long time that nuclear only leads to trouble, and the anti nuclear movement has an inspiring past of actions in protest of nuclear energy. In Scotland this July the leaders of the 8 most powerful leaders in the world will meet, and continue to willfully mismanage the situation, promoting nuclear and attemting to make it sound like an acceptable option.

July the 8th has been called as an International Day of Action Against the Root Causes of Climate Change. Coinciding with the G8 summit, actions will happen all over the world. This is a very important time for action against new nuclear energy programmes which have been on the G8 table as viable options in tackling climate change. Rather than reducing heavy industry, the G8 leaders will encourage expensive, dangerous and unreliable projects as 'solutions' to the global problem of climate change.

There have been rumblings about the possibility of a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK for some time. In the days following the re-election of the Labour government, fears about this programme have been confirmed, with the emergence of a government memorandum revealing that the government will try to push through decisions on building more nuclear
plants, in the full knowledge that "it is generally easier to push through controversial issues early in a new parliament".(Department of Productivity,Observer UK 09.05.05). Grossly underestimating the opposition I hope.

As the recent news has shown, the new government will try and convince members of the public into thinking that nuclear is safe. This is despite the fact nuclear plants have a history of accidents, leaks and explosions and that there is no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste.

It is not just in the UK that nuclear energy is facing a revival. During 2004 the uranium spot market price exceeded the benchmark of 20.00 US$/lb U3O8, and since then a frenzy of acquisitions of innocent tracts of land began, involving many exploration companies previously not involved in the uranium business. In India four new uranium mines have been proposed,
one of which helped spark a protest march through Shillong and two one-day general strikes. Kazakhstan recently disclosed it´s ambition to become the world´s leading uranium producer by upping it´s annual production from 3000 to approx 16,000t by 2015. Countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have begun to start up nuclear plants, some with the support of the US and the EBRD (European Bank of Reconstruction and Development - public money).

Pressure from those inside the nuclear industry have influenced governments to take on an industry already in financial disarray. In 2004 the World Health Organisation (WHO) once more revised its provisional guideline value for uranium in drinking water, now from 9 µg/l to 15 µg/l, while the original value had been 2 ?g/l. The change once again is not based on new toxicity
data, but on a revision of the allocation of the tolerable daily intake to drinking water, now from 50% to 80%.

In a clever PR move, the UK Government has flagged up climate change as an issue to deal with during their G8 presidency, though most movement to date seems to be pushing nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels. Theclaims the government will use to make nuclear energy look like a positive move will be that it is a 'green' energy and doesn't produce CO2. The
nuclear cycle is highly energy intensive, with mining, milling, processing, enrichment, waste and transportation all carbon intensive. Nuclear plants cannot vary their production to meet demand, as the reactors must run at a constant rate. Therefore they cannot aim to cover the world´s full electricity demand.

Even if nuclear energy could meet electricity needs, electricity production only accounts for a fraction of our CO2 emissions, and very little has been done so far to discourage other sources of emissions. Indeed, new roads are built and air-plane fuel is still not taxed! This will not improve the chances of any state to reach the targets set by Kyoto. A new nuclear energy
programme might suggest targets can be reached but it will in fact not cut emissions in the short term, will leave us with a legacy of dangerous waste, and still in the not too distant future we will have to deal with the problem of extracting ever more difficult to utilise uranium. Uranium is a finite substance just as gas, coal and oil are and good grade uranium has
already been depleted. In the future uranium extraction will be increasingly costly and carbon intensive to utilise. Sound familiar?

In order to take climate change seriously, we need to take the bigger picture of our consumption into account. The UK Prime Minister TonyBlair has refused to encourage 'lifestyle' changes (The Independent 9th May2005) and it is clear he has no intention of really tackling climate concerns through industry. The world has reached its peak of oil and gas
extraction,and in the future there will be massive inequalities in access to fossil fuels which will forcibly change the lifestyles of everyone on the planet. On the other hand, renewable energy sources, such as wind, biomass, solarand mini-hydro, are easy to decentralise and accessible to individuals and communities, with no need to involve big corporations. Hydrogen and nuclear
energy production is high tech, and this is why they are easy for governments and corporations to control.


Nuclear weapon states have a serious dependency on nuclear power stations in the production of weapons grade plutonium, uranium and tritium. The UK's nuclear arsenal relies on a constant supply of tritium as it has to be replaced every 8 years. Chapelcross power station in Scotland, which is now being decommissioned, has played a major role in the UK's nuclear
>weapons programme. Spent fuel can also be used for "bunker busters", armour piercing anti-tank munitions, low yield ground impact nuclear weapons....Depleted uranium shells were used in both Iraqi wars.

The next few months could be crucial for campaigns against the nuclear industry. The 8th of July is a chance to show not just the UK government but the other G8 countries and the world's media that people will not stand for being arm twisted or conned into accepting a nuclear future.

By taking action in whatever way your campaign feels happy on the 8th of July, wherever you are, you will support the actions of other groups and show solidarity with the many indigenous peoples around the world suffering at the hands of mega corporations who are destroying their lands and murdering their people for the fossil fuel industry.

This is a call for anyone involved in resistance to nuclear energy to speak up on the 8th of July, in the way that you and your friends work best.You can do this in your home town, or you can plan something for when you come to Scotland this summer. Dissent can provide advice on Scottish law, some legal support, and some ideas on UK nuclear energy companies and
advocates.

If you do not want to organise your own action there is a blockade planned for the 4th of July at Faslane in Scotland (part of a series of well organised mass blockades of the nuclear military base), and Friends of theEarth has called a noise demo at Gleneagles on the 7th.

Please contact me at  greenpix_z@yahoo.co.uk if you would like publicity materials such as postcards or posters about the day of action. There are also documents on climate change and the G8 and on exposing the myths and facts about nuclear energy. If your campaign decides to do something for this day or to do with the new nuclear energy programme please let us know so we can inspire others to take action.

Thank you, and good luck!.

SEE ALSO:

 http://www.dissent.org.uk/g8climateaction

 http://www.dissent.org.uk/

www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/g8.html

 http://www.faslaneg8.com/

 http://www.tridentploughshares.org/index.php3

 http://www.g8alternatives.org.uk/

 http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/

dissent! climate action group
- e-mail: greenpix_z@yahoo.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.dissent.org.uk/g8climateaction

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

nuclear leak

31.05.2005 07:16

Anger over fuel leak at Sellafield

 http://icteesside.icnetwork.co.uk/thejournal/news/tm_objectid=15572175&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=anger-over-fuel-leak-at-sellafield-name_page.html

May 30 2005

By Guy Basnett, The Journal


A radioactive fuel leak at Sellafield was Britain's worst nuclear accident for 13 years, and may have gone undetected for nine months, it emerged last night.

The Sellafield nuclear processing plant in Cumbria

Tens of thousands of litres of dissolved nuclear fuel seeped from a ruptured pipe into a sealed cell at the centre's Thorp reprocessing plant.

An investigation into the leak, which was detected last month, has now revealed the pipe may have started to fail, due to "metal fatigue", as long ago as August 2004.

It also found "opportunities" to detect the leak "were missed" between January and April, and could have seen any nuclear leakage "significantly reduced".

Last night environmentalists claimed the report revealed the latest in a long line of failings at the plant, and called for it to be shut once and for all. But a spokesman for British Nuclear Group, which runs it, said a clean-up operation had started, and Thorp would re-start as soon as possible.

Jean McSorley, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, said: "To have that amount of spent nuclear fuel, which is highly radioactive, sloshing around in nitric acid, is a major incident.

"BNFL is making it seem like we should be grateful it was a sealed unit, but it shouldn't happen in the first place. I just wonder what implication it's got for other parts of the plant."

The 83,000-litre pool of liquor, made up of spent uranium and plutonium dissolved in nitric acid, was discovered on April 19 when a CCTV camera was introduced to the cell.

The investigation, by the British Nuclear Group board of inquiry, found the pipe failed because of stresses it suffered while attached to a suspended tank.

There was no leak into the environment, or harm to any workers. It added there was "some evidence" it may have started to fail in August, 2004, but "significant amounts" of liquor began to be released in January.

Opportunities, such as cell sampling and level measurements, which would have shown material was escaping, were missed by workers for four months.

The Atomic Energy Authority classified the accident as a Level 3, on a scale from 0 to 7, with Level 7 reserved for catastrophes such as Chernobyl. The last Level 3 in Britain was also at Sellafield, in September 1992. The most recent Level 4 incident led to the deaths of three workers in Japan, in 1999.

Martin Forwood, campaign coordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) said: "One or two decisions need to be considered very quickly. That is do they re-start the plant again, and is it worth re-starting? The clear answer is no, it shouldn't re-open."

He said the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA), which took ownership of the plant on April 1, should now recommend the Government closes the plant for good.

But Nigel Monckton, spokesman for BNG at Sellafield, said recovery of the leaked liquor began last week, and the aim was to re-start.

"Thorp has enough business to keep it going until at least 2010. Any future contracts are a matter for the Government. Thorp is profitable."

The NDA said last night it was waiting for reports before making any decision on the plant's future.

luna


suspicious

31.05.2005 09:43

Suddenly the newswire is full of anti-nuclear stories. I wonder why that is ?

In the past few weeks two major independent organisations have reached similar conclusions concerning the benefits of nuclear power and now all these stories have appeared. It's almost as though somebody with a vested interest in seeing the continuation of oil as the primary source of world power is posting comments to discredit nuclear power.

I wonder


troll

31.05.2005 11:26

These anti-nuclear pieces are quite clarly not pro-oil you pranny. People are trying to get across that all the hoo-hah about climate change finally being spouted by Blair et al is simply a smokescreen to introduce the presumed necessity of nuclear. That way energy-intensive consumer-lifestyles can rest easy, everyone can fly ten times a year, and drive to work, becasue we'll be told we have to have ten new reactors instead of investing in small scale local renewables which would make people energy self-sufficient. We can't have that, can we?

anarchoteapot


Confused

31.05.2005 12:48

I'm confused it seems that posters are not objecting to nuclear power because of the risks of generating power that way or because of the residual waste but because they feel society uses too much power ? Who cares, if we can generate it safely and cleanly why not use it.

I don't understand the move to local generation when a national sytem is cheaper and more efficient.

No I'm not a "troll" just confused.

?


Please stop it

31.05.2005 12:52

May I make a heartfelt plea to all contributors to stop and think before posting 'Troll' in response to posts. The earlier post here by "I wonder" is a legitimate one and deserves to be discussed and analysed. I do not support Nuclear Power but I too have seen the power of Big Oil and its funding of what looks like Green groups to help stifle debate.

Calling somebody a troll because they have a view a little different to yours is not helpful or loving.

Annie

Annie


simple

31.05.2005 16:58

key reasons why nuke is not a simple or good solution to peak oil and climate change are:

a. dangerous leaks and radiation from waste abiding millions of years with no realistic solution in sight (and yes areas near cumbria could go the way of parts of ukraine, and no it is not pretty)

b. creation of dangerous materials easily obtained by terrorists/rogue states (this is including UK govt with its use of DU - Depleted Uranium - a nuclear 'waste product' that conveniently makes military holes in metals and then poisons iraqi/balkan etc children...)

c. centralised government/elite technician control over our key energy sources. fossil fuels, for all their drawbacks, are dug up from the ground and transported here and there by more or less ordinary people: miners and oil workers etc who have shown tendency to strike when pissed off. by contrast nuclear requires massive installations controlled by a few highly trained elite scientists and technicians, over which and whom government can exercise relatively tight control. solar, wind, tidal? the resources are all a bit dispersed, and the technology necessary to harness them is made and controllable by local and relatively easily trained people.

so what a surporise the nuclear option has friends in high places that renewables don't.

msc


Serious about climate change...

31.05.2005 17:38

Nuclear is a filthy dirty cop out. Stories abound about the leaks cos they are happening. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we must change our behaviour and energy consumption patterns, starting with transport. Transport is the fastest growing source of CO2, accoounting for 25% of all UK emissions at present, and fast rising.

This is very damaging for the government, and recent stats on soaring CO2 from transport have been censored in the run up to the G8. See  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1225523,00.html

becca


.. and now for realism

31.05.2005 18:29

a. dangerous leaks and radiation from waste abiding millions of years with no realistic solution in sight (and yes areas near cumbria could go the way of parts of ukraine, and no it is not pretty)

IN FIFTY YEARS THIS HAS NOT HAPPENDED ONCE IN FRANCE - WHY SHOULD IT HERE ?

b. creation of dangerous materials easily obtained by terrorists/rogue states (this is including UK govt with its use of DU - Depleted Uranium - a nuclear 'waste product' that conveniently makes military holes in metals and then poisons iraqi/balkan etc children...)

SECURITY - THERE ARE MANY DANGEROUS THINGS IN STORAGE THAT TERRORISTS WOULD LIKE TO GET HOLD OFF SUCH AS CONVENTIAL EXPLOSIVES, CHEMICALS, BACTERIA ETC. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME ANYTHING WAS STOLEN FROM PORTON DOWN ?

c. centralised government/elite technician control over our key energy sources. fossil fuels, for all their drawbacks, are dug up from the ground and transported here and there by more or less ordinary people: miners and oil workers etc who have shown tendency to strike when pissed off. by contrast nuclear requires massive installations controlled by a few highly trained elite scientists and technicians, over which and whom government can exercise relatively tight control. solar, wind, tidal? the resources are all a bit dispersed, and the technology necessary to harness them is made and controllable by local and relatively easily trained people.

NOT SURE OF THE POINT HERE. IF WE HAVE A POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM LESS LIKELY TO BE INTERUPTED BY STRIKES SURELY THAT'S A GOOD THING ?

Sat