So what happens ….people are so shocked and awed by the prospect of new
nuclear build on these greenfield sites that they say ‘ Sellafield is the
best place for new build as it is already contaminated’

NO....We should not be deflected by the nasty ‘shock and awe’ tactics from
the real issue which is that NO site in Cumbria is ‘suitable’ for new
nuclear build. Not while the High Level Liquid nuclear wastes already
existing at Sellafield are in a critically dangerous state.

So much so that the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority has just
published a report on a hypothetical accident at Sellafield. The report concludes
that if only 1% of the liquid radioactive waste stored at the plant is
released to air, the radioactive fallout in Western Norway could be five
times higher than in the areas of Norway that were worst affected by the
Chernobyl accident. In other words, if radiation damage happens in
Norway ~500 miles away then at the epicentre of the accident in Cumbria we would be affected much more severely.

The Norwegian’s report summary states "It has proved difficult to find
relevant information in the public domain describing possible accident
scenarios reviewed by British authorities." Could this lack of interest by
the British authorities in the wellbeing of Cumbrians have something to do
with the fact that Norway has no nuclear power stations and the UK does?

No site in Cumbria is suitable for new nuclear build especially Sellafield which has tanks of highly active liquid waste which the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate have already
described as being in a critically dangerous condition. An accident would
have devastating impacts on Cumbrian agriculture, the environment and the
health and wellbeing of Lakeland society for decades to come. A
spokesperson for Radiation Free Lakeland said “Money and energy should be
put into reducing the risks of existing waste rather than bribing Cumbria
with taxpayers money to accept a nuclear dump and new, more dangerous nuclear
power plants under the guise of the 'Energy Coast' producing even more highly
radioactive wastes with unending profligate use of fossil fuel and fresh water”.

A public meeting is being held in Keswick at the Friends Meeting House
7-9pm on 21st April at which top scientists Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr Rachel
Western will discuss the reasons why the Lake District and Cumbrian Coast
should not become a Nuclear Sacrifice Zone. The Lakes are for Living....
not living beyond our means or the means of future generations.

From the Norwegian report
“Currently B215 contains about 1000 m3 HAL divided between 21 specially
designed tanks (Highly Active Storage Tanks - HASTs). The HAL generates
heat, is a product of reprocessing activities (at facility B205, Magnox
reprocessing and Thorp) and requires continual cooling and active
management.”

The cooling is from the Lake District's freshwater resources such as
Wastwater from which over 4 million gallons are abstracted daily. In
times of heat and drought the tanks require additional cooling water.
The Nuclear Industry pays no utility bills for water despite using more fresh water daily than Millom, Ulverston and Barrow put together.

More Info from the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment

On 23 March, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority published a
report on the possible consequences for Norway of an atmospheric release
of radioactivity from the storage tanks for highly active liquid waste at
Sellafield.
The report shows that an accident could entail considerable fallout over
Norway. The release of just 1% of the tanks’ contents could result in
levels of radioactive fallout in Western Norway that are five times higher
than those measured in the worst affected areas of Norway after the
Chernobyl accident.
On the publication of the report, Norway's Minister of the Environment and
International Development Erik Solheim commented: “There has been concern
about Sellafield for a number of years in Norway, and this is why I asked
the Radiation Protection Authority to draw up a report on scenarios for
the release of radioactivity from the plant. I believe we need to know
what the worst-case consequences of a major accident at Sellafield could
be.”
Norway would be vulnerable in the event of a large release of
radioactivity from Sellafield, both because of its geographical position
and because of the prevailing weather conditions. The impacts of a major
atmospheric release could be particularly severe.
The report considers an accident involving the storage tanks for highly
active liquid waste. These currently contain about 1000 m3 of radioactive
waste from several decades of reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
The Norwegian authorities consider that in the worst case, an accident at
Sellafield could have significant impacts on Norwegian agriculture, the
environment and society for decades to come. The Radiation Protection
Authority is to follow up the report with further assessment of these
impacts. The report states that the Norwegian emergency response system is
designed to cope with an accident of this kind.
The Norwegian authorities have repeatedly expressed their serious concern
about security and safety at Sellafield and the large quantities of liquid
radioactive waste stored there. This report shows that their concern is
justified, and that it is important to strengthen the dialogue with the
British authorities to ensure that the risk level is reduced as rapidly as
possible.
To read the original report from the Norwegian Radiation Protection
Authority, click here.
 http://www.nrpa.no/internett_eng/index.asp?topExpand=&subExpand=&strUrl=//applications/system/publish/view/showobject.asp?infoobjectid=1005998&channelid=1000079