Nuclear No Answer To Climate Change
Callie | 12.09.2007 10:56 | Climate Chaos | Ecology
Local representatives from Friends of the Earth demonstrated outside the East Midlands consultation event to highlight the fact that the Government’s consultation on nuclear power is a sham. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF-UK, CND and the Green Alliance have withdrawn from the Government's public consultation on nuclear power because it is seriously flawed.
"This is not a genuine consultation about nuclear power. It is deeply flawed and it is clear that the Government has essentially made up its mind. We are perfectly happy to debate the issue of nuclear power, but we are not prepared to take part in this latest Government farce.
"Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. A new programme would only generate around four per cent of the UK's energy consumption. It is expensive and dangerous, and will leave a highly toxic legacy for many generations to come. There are lots of non-nuclear alternatives that would combat climate change, maintain energy security and keep the lights on. The Government should invest in these solutions and make Britain a world leader in developing a safe and sustainable low-carbon economy."
Friends of the Earth have withdrawn from the consultation for a number of reasons. These include:
A lack of clear non nuclear options which would have facilitated informed public debate;
A failure to provide adequate information about the wider dangers of nuclear power, such as terrorism and proliferation;
The `consultation' is being rushed through in five months over the summer period, and the NGO stakeholder group participation process has been rushed). The Sustainable Development Commission recommended nine months;
The Government appears to have already made up its mind to push ahead with a new nuclear programme.
Friends of the Earth's nuclear briefing
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/nuclear_not_a_solution.pdf
Callie
e-mail:
callie.lister@foe.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/local_groups_and_campaigns/emidland.htm
Additions
After all Nuclear is so safe!
12.09.2007 16:19
Dounreay taking 40 years to make safe after decomissioning
Nuclear so safe that locals flee
And the local area is unsafe
Well as we have the facility lets use it for other dodgy purposes
Gulliver
Nuclear Power No Chance
23.09.2007 21:54
Nuclear Power No Thanks
See
http://www.veggies.org.uk/event.php?ref=1057 and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/05/370120.html Also related is the Wed 26 September Biofuels talk and protest planning at 8pm at the Sumac Centre, 245 Gladstone St, Forest Fields. Read article at
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/09/381455.html for more info. Nuclear Power - No Future
* Government proposals do not address the carbon debt involved with building nuclear power stations. The construction industry and in particular the production of concrete has a major impact on carbon emissions.
* There can be no 'energy security' from power stations that depend on fuel source, uranium, that is not produced in the UK and which, from all sources, is likely to run out in the forseeable future.
* When taking into account the legacy that nuclear power leaves for future generations it cannot be economic. What would be the cost over the millenia if the Romans had had nuclear power?
The huge cost of building, running and cleaning up after nuclear power stations should more economically, safely and democratically be invested in local micro-generation, ruducing the losses of power transmission, and in promoting the benefits of a less consumer orientated life style and society.
* When the uranium runs out, or the power stations reach the end of their productive life, when oil has peaked and is in decline, where will the energy be found to keep safe and secure the ever growing legecy of nuclear waste?
* We are facing possible runaway climate change because of the expansionist policies and practical unsustanabilities of economic growth. We have only one Earth. We have already outgrown it. We cannot endlessly grow our economies, and those of 'emerging' countries. We must set an example by promoting the satisfaction on living within our means, whilst devoloping policies to reverse economic growth.
* Nuclear fuel is a limited resource. We do not control it's supply. As it, and other fuels, run out we cannot guarantee that those countries that have uranium will be forever willing to share it, at any cost. With which countries will be be willing to go to war over nuclear fuel, as we have, and continue to do, for the declining supply of oil?
* There are more simple and more preductive ways of reducing our impact on the climate.
For example the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation report that the livestock sector has a major impact, 18%, on emmisions leading to climate change. Reliance on livestock is neither neccessary nor beneficial to human health or that of the environment. It's demands for land, water and basic food inputs prevents the use of agricultural skills and resources for horticultural techniques, including woodland management, for food and resources, that could reverse climate change.
Derby & Nottingham anti-nuclear protests, May 2007. Reports and more links at
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/336747.html Nuclear Power No Thanks stickers from :
http://www.veggies.org.uk/page.php?ref=789
Pat
Homepage:
http://www.veggies.org.uk/page.php?ref=521
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Peak Oil and Nuclear Plants
12.09.2007 19:15
Using huge quanties of natural gas to extract oil from sand and shale isn't sustainable, or sensible, "Most of the project's existing power comes from a gas-fired plant, but gas production in North America is declining."
Bio-fuel is just as mad as putting more energy into the ground than you get out as oil -- it's already increased the cost of basics such as corn for the worlds poor and it's set to result in millions starving to death as food crops are dirverted into fuel production.
Of course nuclear power isn't safe, these radio shows are very good:
--------------------------------------------------
IS NUCLEAR POWER COMING BACK?
A four-part mini-series based on a briefing, on November 7 and 8, 2005,
by Dr. Helen Caldicott's organization, the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
Anti nuclear campaigner Dr. Helen Caldicott invited scientists, members of the Bush administration, and journalists for a two-day conference to address the following issues: What is the connection between nuclear power and war, what is the safety record of nuclear power plants, and what is their effect on the people living around them? And what lies behind the claim of the Bush administration that nuclear power plants are being brought back to ward off global warming?
In domestic and foreign policy, in legislation and funding priorities, the Bush administration has begun a major shift towards building new nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing sites; technologies that were abandoned in the US decades ago. The energy bill, passed in the fall of 2005,, set aside $8.7 billion for the nuclear, oil, and coal industries while offering only $1.3 billion for alternative fuels. Some have asked why the oil industry, with record high profits needs a $1.6 billion subsidy. Not enough critics have investigated the biggest line item of them all: the unprecedented $4.3 billion to the nuclear industry.
A281/Part ONE: IS NUCLEAR POWER COMING BACK?
Congressman Ed Markey (D. Mass.)
Rep. Ed Markey on the status of waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, on the Bush administration's violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and on massive subsidies to the nuclear industry.
Congressman Ed Markey was first elected to Congress in 1976, and has fought against nuclear proliferation and for environmental protection. Rep. Markey and Dr. Caldicott are friends and have worked together on the Nuclear Freeze and in the aftermath of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania.
A281/Part TWO: NUCLEAR RADIATION'S IMPACT ON LIFE
Dan Hirsch (Committee to Bridge the Gap), Dr. Helen Caldicott (Nuclear Policy Research Institute), and David Richardson (School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina)
On the efforts of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to raise allowable exposure levels, and on the biological effects of radiation. We now have ample evidence, gathered in the last 60 years, of how nuclear radiation harms life. All radiation is cumulative; there are no safe levels. Radiation causes cancers in organs, glands, bones and blood.
But this issue is about more than the individual deaths from cancer. Radiation affects by mutation the genetic heritage each of us carries in our DNA. The future of life is present today within the bodies of living people, animals and plants -- the whole seed-bearing biosphere. We are now altering these carefully evolved seeds by randomly damaging them, and passing on that damage to future generations.
Dan Hirsch is president and co-founder of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear watchdog group that provides technical and legal assistance to communities near existing or proposed nuclear power projects.
Dr. Helen Caldicott explains in detail how radiation damages life. She is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the author of numerous books on nuclear and environmental issues. Her book, Nuclear Power is not the Solution to Global Warming will be published in the fall of 2006.
David Richardson is assistant professor of Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He specializes in long-term effects of radiation exposure.
A282/Part THREE: ROUTINE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS
Kay Drey (NIRS), and David Lochbaum (Union of Concerned Scientists)
Very few people know that nuclear power plants routinely release highly radioactive substances into the environment. Even accidents at the 103 U.S. plants hardly ever get reported.
Kay Drey is a Board member of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Since 1974 she has worked on hazards from so-called routine releases of radioactive gases and wastewater from nuclear power plants. You can find out more about her work at
David Lochbaum began his career as nuclear engineer a few months after the Three Mile Island meltdown. For the next 17 years he worked at nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut. Now he is a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists where he monitors the performance of all US nuclear power plants.
A282/Part FOUR: NUCLEAR POWER FOR A POLICE STATE Or: A Police State for Nuclear Power?
Dr. Arjun Makhijani and David Freeman
When David Freeman became the head of the Tennessee Valley authority 30 years ago he halted construction of eight nuclear power plants. Today he warns that nuclear power is a failed technology and that it takes a police state to live with it.
Freeman has dealt with nuclear power plants and public utilities all his life. An engineer and lawyer, he was energy adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He held top positions at the New York Power Authority, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Lower Colorado River Authority and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). During his tenure in Sacramento Freeman initiated the nation's most intensive utility conservation program, including electric vehicle, wind and solar programs.
Dr. Arjun Makhijani holds a degree in engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked on plasma physics and controlled nuclear fusion. He is the principal editor and co-author of Nuclear Wastelands, the first global assessment of the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons production. Dr. Makhijani addresses the issue of nuclear proliferation and why nuclear technologies have spread in spite of the efforts, begun in the early 1960s, to dismantle existing weapons stockpiles.
Chris
Homepage:
http://tucradio.org/
New particle one of the hottest yet
13.09.2007 14:28
New particle one of the hottest yet
Published: 12 September, 2007
THE latest radioactive fragment found on Sandside beach is one of the hottest yet detected, it emerged yesterday.
The particle of caesium-137 picked up during a sweep of the beach on Friday was the third recovered since monitoring resumed on August 5 after a lengthy gap.
This brings the legacy of pollution from the nearby Dounreay plant to 97 used reactor fuel particles and an unidentified radioactive object.
After being taken back to a lab at the former fast-reactor complex, Friday's particle was found to have an activity count of 380,000 becquerels (Bq). That compares to the most active 500,000 Bq particle which was recovered in February this year. The discovery led to Scotland's pollution watchdog reviewing whether to close off the four-mile stretch of beach to the public.
The next highest since monitoring of the beach started 23 years ago have been 480,000 and 396,000 Bq finds in January 2007 and June 2006 respectively.
The series of high counts led to environmental radiochemist Philip Day predicting the arrival of a million-becquerel particle – the level which Government experts say would pose a significant health hazard.
Dr Day is the expert adviser to Sandside Estate, which has been at loggerheads with Dounreay's operator, the UKAEA, over the rogue discharges.
A spokesman for the estate said yesterday the latest find is a further worrying sign of the "desecration" of the area caused by the pollution.
"This is a further reminder of the seriousness of the problem there is at Sandside," said the spokesman. "We're very close now to a century of radioactive particles being washed up on the beach, and this latest one is a further sign that the particles are getting bigger and more active."
The spokesman added: "It underlines the pressing need for the UKAEA to draw up a realistic plan to deal with this terrible ongoing desecration of the area."
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and public health authorities have not judged the risk posed by the pollution to justify closing off public access to the beach.
The independent Dounreay Particles Advisory Group has assessed the risk of someone coming into contact with a potentially harmful particle as 80 million to one. In its classification of particles, it rated significant any with a reading of over a million Bq.
The majority unearthed at Sandside have been below 100,000 Bq but most of the higher-active finds have come in the past couple of years.
The UKAEA was in February fined £100,000 at Wick Sheriff Court after admitting three charges relating to the rogue discharges of the particles between 1963 and 1984.
Danny
Homepage:
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3019/New_particle_one_of_the_hottest_yet.html
Ref. The Hottest Particle Yet
29.09.2007 12:43
Also some indication of the doseage you are likely to receive would be nice to know (in relation to what you get during your everyday life) or is that so infinitessimilly (spelling?) small as to be insignificant?
Ta,
Phil
phil