Sample e-mail (mostly courtesy of Stop Hinkley  http://www.stophinkley.org - feel free to adapt):

To:  Justification@decc.gsi.gov.uk
Cc:  OND@berr.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Your MP

Dear Sir,

The Justification Process for New Nuclear Reactors

The Nuclear Industry Application for Justification of new nuclear power stations presents a misleading case for determining the health effects of local discharges from nuclear power stations. The ICRP model referred to is based on epidemiological studies of Hiroshima survivors. More recent epidemiological studies show higher cancer rates in populations situated close to nuclear power stations, and following the Chernobyl disaster. It should thus be concluded that the ICRP model is unsafe, not least because the after effects of a single blast of radiation are likely to be different to the chronic ingestion, inhalation or other exposure to particles of lower level radioactivity and particles of substances that are mutagenic / directly toxic to DNA, such as uranium and plutonium. Hence the NIA comparison of external radiation exposure from flying at high altitudes is also likely to be inappropriate and misleading.

- The CERRIE Minority Report 2004 helps explain the thinking here.

- A summary of 100 papers on the health effects of the Chernobyl disaster provides evidence of higher incidences of cancer than previously acknowledged: [ECRR Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, European Committee on Radiation Risk]

- The German KiKK study from 2008 shows a doubling of childhood leukaemia rates within five kilometres of all German Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs), similar to those being assessed for new nuclear build in the UK.

- Excess breast cancer and infant mortality has been found near, for example, Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset:  http://www/stophinkley.org/health

- Documents from EDF show that an accident involving AREVA NP's European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) would release far more radiation than would occur at existing reactors; with one study estimating that in the worst case scenario, 28 000 deaths would result instead of 16 000 [Independent on Sunday, 8 February 2009]

- There is no credible or satisfactory plan for the management and disposal of high burn-up spent nuclear fuel, which will remain in situ at local sites for an estimated 160 years.

- No information is provided to demonstrate that the nuclear reactors or sites can withstand terrorist attacks.

- Any benefits of lower electricity costs from leaving fuel in the reactor for longer will be more than offset by an increase in the cost of managing the spent fuel to minimise health risks.

- Future generations that have to retrieve spent fuel from long-term storage, condition it, encapsulate it and place it deep underground will be most exposed to the serious health and safety risks involved. This transfer of cost, effort and exposure of future generations to health risks and genetic damage is unacceptable.

For meaningful and realistic examination of all the evidence, a public inquiry must be held. The Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, with his known bias in favour of nuclear power and declared conflict of interest, must not adjudicate on this matter.


** Don't forget to include: **

Your name:
Your address:

[You must specify (preferably with explanation) if you want any of your details kept confidential]