Skip to content or view screen version

Nuclear? No thanks!

Notts IMC person | 27.03.2006 11:10 | Anti-militarism | Ecology

The building of 10 new nuclear power stations, the replacing of the Trident nuclear submarinesa and recently Tony Blair announcing the governments new nuclear power policy at Nottingham University, all sparked protests and this week has been no exception. A protest took place in Derby where campaigners handed a letter to Mrs Beckett, head of DEFRA, outside Derby City Council about the dangers of nuclear powerstations.

In both Nottingham and Derby pickets took place. In Nottingham on the Market Square people from Nottingham CND informed passers-by about the controversial replacement of Trident, UK's largest nuclear submarine project and asked people to sign the petition. You can sign the petition here.

From the newswire: No To Nuclear Power Protest - Derby | The Nottingham Thingy just growed | No Trident Replacement protest March 25th | Anti Nuclear Power Protest - Derby 25th March | Day of action as Tony Blair sets out new nuclear power policy in Nottingham

Links: Nottingham CND | New Nuclear Power, no thanks | Documentary on fifty crows on Chernobyl reactor disaster | Map of nuclear reactors



Notts IMC person

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

having your cake and eating it too

27.03.2006 12:56

I fail to understand the progressives' beef with nuclear power. I'm a card carrying lefty and to me nuclear power presents the most sensible alternative to fossil fuels. You couldn't ask for a better safer cleaner source of energy. As much as I'd like to see us running on solar or wind or biomass, the truth is that these alternatives can't even begin to address our energy needs. Nuclear power can. Ask yourself why this is a taboo subject politically, why do Dems and Repubs and Indys alike unite against it? The answer is fear, a fear that was instilled in us by Cold War mongering and distrust. Yes, nuclear technology is dangerous and it takes vigilance to control the material, but it IS possible and completely worth it to continue doing so. Much of the rest of the world is moving in this direction and working through the logistics. France gets 75% of their power from nuclear energy... China, Japan, Russia, India, and much of the middle east are all building dozens of new plants to begin their slow and painful transition from oil. If we continue to cower in fear based only on the distrust of our fellow man, our country has no proseperous future. Wake up!

jared
mail e-mail: jaredolesen@hotmail.com


unclear on nuclear

29.03.2006 09:05

Frankly I am not sure whether nuclear power is the right choice for our energy requirements. I do know that we are careless and use excessive amounts of energy and that concentrating on reducing our energy consumption is more pro-active than extending the facility to consume ever increasing quantities, resulting in increased carbon emmissions and increased global warming. Instinctively I would support a policy that aims to reduce our energy consumption whilst increasing the use of natural power sources (solar, wind, geothermal etc). This is not radical, it is common sense. Therefore I am instinctively against nuclear power and the fact that it is essentially dirty energy that provides a greedy society with short term solutions to long term problems. I am not living in fear of some throw back to the cold war (as the previous comment suggests I might be), but judging the information that I have to the best of my knowledge and trying to make informed decisions about ethical living standards.

I would also like to add that I went to complete the anti trident petition which was given as a link to the original article. I was pretty upset to find that it is obligatory to make a donation to what appears to be an American company (I petitions or something)... What is this all about?? Obviously I chose not to sign the petition!!!

martin


Not really

29.03.2006 19:23

I've just signed the petition and at the end it says 'your signature is registered' and then askes you for a donation, but I checked and mine was already on there without donating...

Jack


progressive

12.04.2006 17:30

Jared, us "progressives" stand against nuclear power because it is not clean or safe, and is not a solution to global warming as most the uranium left in the world is low grade and takes vast quantities of fossil fuels to prepare.

Nuclear power is a greenwash, and a way for private companies to get hold of tax-payers money.



L


Powerful Yellow Monster - Uranium Stories

27.07.2007 08:38

Effect of urnanium mining in India from a photo by P Madhavan
Effect of urnanium mining in India from a photo by P Madhavan

There is an exhibition on in the Dukes Gallery, Lancaster which describes the human rights abuses uranium mining inflicts on indigenous peoples. The stories are directly from people affected and include environmental, social and physical injustices. James Lovelock is part of the coercion inisting that Navajos are misguided ( he uses stronger language) for not wanting further uranium mining on their land. As the recent floods have shown drinking water is the most precious commodity not electricity and nuclear power is the most water hungry source of energy there ( not counting uranium mining and milling) is using hundreds of millions of gallons of water a year from pure water sources such as Wastwater in Cumbria.

Exhibition runs until August 23rd

Marianne Birkby
mail e-mail: wildart@mariannebirkby.plus.com


note on water

28.10.2007 23:32


Just a note to Marianne about nuclear power's use of water.

A nuclear power plant uses water from a river, lake or the sea as a coolant. The water goes in and comes out just a few degrees warmer. It's still water and it doesn't get used up. It also doesn't get affected by any of the radioactive nasties inside.

Also, any thermal (gas, coal, biomass) plant would use the same amount of water. Nuclear's no 'worse' than the others.

R U D I