(Un)Safety
In a nuclear reactor, huge quantities of radioactive
atoms are created – to the extent that
the waste fuel rods that are taken out of the
reactors are so lethal that they would almost
immediately kill someone if they were to be
anywhere near.
The nuclear industry relies on “shielding” in
order to stop the wastes killing people in such
a direct way. However some of the waste
will still be radioactive one million years into
the future, and even though the waste would
be much less intensely radioactive after that
time, people would still need to be protected
from it.
In the 1990s the UK RadioactiveWaste organisation
“Nirex” planned to begin digging at
their planned burial site – near the Sellafield
plutonium plant in Cumbria.
However, they needed to get planning permission
before they could start, and because the
local Council didn’t want the dump, there
needed to be a planning inquiry. However, as
the nuclear industry’s technical case was
completely hopeless the plan was thrown out.
The project was rejected both by the Planning
Inspectors and also the Secretary of State for
the Environment. Overall, the Inspector
concluded that the Nuclear Industry should
not be given the goahead:
“in [their] current
state of inadequate knowledge”.
Roll forward to 2010, and in March 2010
“NuclearWaste Advisory Associates” [a
bunch of RadWaste Geeks who were involved
in the campaigns of the 1980s/90s] submitted
an “Issues Register” to the Environment
Agency which listed over one hundred
scientific and technical problems with the
dump plans. Even the “NDA” (the Nuclear
“Decommisioning” Authority) which is
supposed to be pulling the dump project
together are at a loss as to whether or not they
could dump waste safely.
For the planned “New Build” reactors the problems
would be even worse. Of course more
reactors would equal yet more waste – but on
top of that the waste would be different. It
would be hotter and also more radiotoxic.
This is because the industry wants to hammer
the fuel for even longer in the reactor to get
more electricity out of it.
The Government is afraid to let any of these
problems be scrutinised by the planning
system – and they have gone to a very great
deal of trouble to overhaul the whole of the
planning system.
People aren’t stupid. The Nuclear Industry is
completely clueless about how to deal with
the extraordinarily dangerous toxins that they
want to create. People will realise this – and
then the nuclear industry will not get away
with their absurd plans for New Build.

(Un)Safety
Nuclear power is not as safe as they
want us to believe. Nuclear regulators
from the UK, France and Finland sent
a joint letter to Areva, the makers of
the European Pressurised Reactor
(EPR), in October 2009, about problems
with the design’s Control and
Instrumentation (C&I) systems. One
independent expert says the design
suffers from serious safety flaws
which could lead a minor incident to
develop into a severe accident. The
French group Sortir du Nucléaire
published leaked documents showing
the design presents a serious risk of a
major accident.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
sent the design of the
Westinghouse AP1000 proposed for
Britain back to the drawing board,
because the Safety Shield Building –
the outer structure surrounding the
containment – does not meet “fundamental
engineering standards” and
may not protect the reactor from “external”
events like earthquakes, tornadoes
and high winds, or withstand a
direct hit from a commercial airliner.
The UK regulator askedWestinghouse
to provide fresh evidence that
the design was sufficiently strong.
Interim assessment reports on the two
designs published in November 2009
expressed “significant concerns”.
Pete Roche

The Nuclear
Companies
EDF Energy bought British Energy
to gain access to sites for nuclear new
build. It subsequently sold a 20%
stake to Centrica, better known to the
public as Scottish Gas or British Gas.
They aim to build new nuclear at
Hinkley Point, Sizewell, Heysham,
Hartlepool, and Bradwell.
German RWE, in Britain better
known as RWE npower, bought sites
at Kirksanton and Braystones in
Cumbria for new nuclear. In addition,
RWE formed a jointventure
with
another German utility company,
E.on, under the name Horizon
Nuclear Power, to develop nuclear
power atWylfa and Oldbury.
Spanish Iberdrola, which bought
Scottish Power in 2007, formed a
joint venture with French GDF Suez
and Scottish and Southern Energy
(trading as SWALEC, Southern
Electric, Scottish Hydro Electric and
Atlantic Electric and Gas) to build a
new nuclear power station at Sellafield.
Two reactor designs are presently on
the table. Areva's EPR and
Westinghouse's AP1000.
Sheffield Forgemasters has recently
been in the media, because it received
an 80million loan from the government
to enable it to install the UK’s
first 15,000 tonne forging press,
making it one of only five companies
worldwide capable of producing
safety critical forgings for nuclear
power reactors.
The Timeline
The government's and nuclear
industry's timeline is tight (graphic
left). The National Policy
Statement Nuclear Power Generation,
which would give a
green light to the Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) to
process applications for new nuclear
power stations, is expected
to be decided in May 2010. A
first application to the IPC —
by EDF for Hinkley Point C —
is expected for 2 August 2010.
And possibly as soon as next
year EDF wants to begin with
preparation works in the site for
Hinkley Point C. In parallel, the
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
(NII) is assessing the designs
of the EPR and AP1000 in
a generic design assessment —
to be completed by June 2011.
Nuclear power is not as low carbon as the government and the
nuclear industry want us to believe. A study of more than 100
lifecycle
studies on nuclear power found that the average carbon
emissions of all studies are 66 gCO2e/kWh (ranging from
1 gCO2e/kWh up to 288 gCO2e/kWh) —clearly more than all
renewables. And: with the need to use increasingly lowgrade
uranium ore, CO2 emissions of nuclear power will increase
significantly.
Nuclear waste – an unsolved problem
In a nuclear reactor, huge quantities of radioactive
atoms are created – to the extent that
the waste fuel rods that are taken out of the
reactors are so lethal that they would almost
immediately kill someone if they were to be
anywhere near.
The nuclear industry relies on “shielding” in
order to stop the wastes killing people in such
a direct way. However some of the waste
will still be radioactive one million years into
the future, and even though the waste would
be much less intensely radioactive after that
time, people would still need to be protected
from it.
In the 1990s the UK RadioactiveWaste organisation
“Nirex” planned to begin digging at
their planned burial site – near the Sellafield
plutonium plant in Cumbria.
However, they needed to get planning permission
before they could start, and because the
local Council didn’t want the dump, there
needed to be a planning inquiry. However, as
the nuclear industry’s technical case was
completely hopeless the plan was thrown out.
The project was rejected both by the Planning
Inspectors and also the Secretary of State for
the Environment. Overall, the Inspector
concluded that the Nuclear Industry should
not be given the goahead:
“in [their] current
state of inadequate knowledge”.
Roll forward to 2010, and in March 2010
“NuclearWaste Advisory Associates” [a
bunch of RadWaste Geeks who were involved
in the campaigns of the 1980s/90s] submitted
an “Issues Register” to the Environment
Agency which listed over one hundred
scientific and technical problems with the
dump plans. Even the “NDA” (the Nuclear
“Decommisioning” Authority) which is
supposed to be pulling the dump project
together are at a loss as to whether or not they
could dump waste safely.
For the planned “New Build” reactors the problems
would be even worse. Of course more
reactors would equal yet more waste – but on
top of that the waste would be different. It
would be hotter and also more radiotoxic.
This is because the industry wants to hammer
the fuel for even longer in the reactor to get
more electricity out of it.
The Government is afraid to let any of these
problems be scrutinised by the planning
system – and they have gone to a very great
deal of trouble to overhaul the whole of the
planning system.
People aren’t stupid. The Nuclear Industry is
completely clueless about how to deal with
the extraordinarily dangerous toxins that they
want to create. People will realise this – and
then the nuclear industry will not get away
with their absurd plans for New Build.
Rachel Western
More information at
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/
Nuclear waste flask Meads station enroutrtaeinfroamt
BHrisintoklleTyePmopilnet PMocwKeernnSatation to Sellafield. © Chris
Local democracy dumped
With the 2006 Energy Review,
the government proposed a number
of initiatives “to reduce the
regulatory barriers for new nuclear
build”. EDF and others
interested in nuclear new build
demanded a “predictable and
efficient consents and approval
process”, getting rid of lengthy
planning inquiries such as these
had been for Sizewell B. The
Planning Act 2008 fasttracks
nuclear power stations and other
“nationally significant infrastructure
projects”, thus removing
a historic democratic decisionmaking
process.
Applications are centralised at
the new Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC): But, as Suffolk
Coastal District Council
deputy leader Andy Smith puts it:
“I don't think that the IPC has
been set up to say no. The problem
is that it was set up by the
government to ensure that it gets
the 'right' answer.”
In addition, a ‘preauthorisation’
system for reactor designs was
implemented. This followed
major pressure from the nuclear
industry, warning that the only
way to guarantee new power
stations open on schedule is to
fasttrack
the planning process
by prelicensing
reactors before
sites are selected – the socalled
“generic design assessment”.
However, the objective of this
kind of prelicensing
is clear: It
shields consideration of nuclear
safety from public scrutiny. Or,
as the government itself says: “It
should speed up the subsequent
sitelicensing
and consents process,
and offer more certainty to
investors at an earlier stage.”
Safety? Democracy? Money
makes the world go round.
Andreas Speck
CO2 Emissions of Electricity Generation

Sellafield incident
Sellafield incident...SELLAFIELD is investigating its first serious incident for seven months after the failure of a safety mechanism. No one was harmed and there was not any escape of radioactivity but hydrogen which can build up from nuclear fuel stored under water was left unchecked for a week. It happened in the old Magnox silos where the radioactive fuel has to be monitored for any deteriorating conditions. Two pieces of safety equipment are used in one of the silo's waste compartment to monitor hydrogen and make sure there is no potentially dangerous build-up which could potentially lead to an explosion.

Whitehaven News 15th Sept 2010
http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/investigation-aft...=news

There are alternatives!
Renewables and energy saving can deliver more
carbon savings than nuclear

Neil Crumpton, until recently
Friends of the Earth’s antinuclear
campaigner/energy specialist,
has produced a “carbonnegative”
nonnuclear
UK 2050
energy scenario. The proposed
infrastructure would have the
potential to go beyond lowcarbon
energy technologies should
climate protection policies require
it. Neil will soon be employed
by the Bellona Foundation
to set up a Bellona UK to
progress such farreaching
energy and climate solutions.
The route map aims to paint the
picture of the likely scale of
lowcarbon
energy generating
and transmission infrastructure
needed to build a resilient,
demandresponsive
UK energy
system.
Renewables, carbon capture and
storage (CCS), heat pumps, urban
heat grids, and heat storage,
and possibly suburban hydrogen
networks fed by coal gasifiers,
would be progressively deployed
during the four decades of
transition.
Offshore windfarms occupying
some 20,000 square kilometers,
and other marine renewables
would supply over half the estimated
2050 energy demand. The
energy produced offshore would
be several times greater than
even two large nuclear power
programmes that New Labour is
proposing.
CCSfitted
Combined Heat and
Power (CHP) plants would
supply industrial clusters and
districtto
citywide
heat grids.
The heat grids would facilitate
the building of large scale heat
storage, large heat pump schemes
and solar thermal arrays
,and potentially interseasonal
heat storage underground. As
variable renewable capacity scales
up, fastresponse
aeroderivative
turbines and fuel cells
would provide power and heat
backup
when renewable output
was low.
Supergrid electricity links to mainland Europe and to Saharan
solar and wind schemes (Desertec
Industrial Initiative) would
also help ensure renewable
energy met the UK's varying
daily and seasonal demands.
The CCSfitted
CHP infrastructure
could be fueled by bioalgae
oil or even “solar” ethanol
(synthesised from CO2 extracted
from desert air) to provide a carbonnegative
power output to
further reduce dangerous atmospheric
CO2 levels.
Such a renewable, loadfollowing,
carbonnegative
infrastructure
is way beyond nuclear
power’s limited, lowish carbon,
inflexible baseload and offers a
far safer, more peaceful and
sustainable future for humans
and all biodiversity on Earth.

Nuclear power: low-level
radiation is not harmless
The government and the nuclear industry
claim that the low level of radiation
emitted by nuclear power stations
during their normal operation is
not harmful. Radiation also occurs
naturally, they argue, and the small
amount of radiation added by nuclear
power stations is insignificant.
However, no dose of radiation is safe.
Radiation damage is cumulative.
Each dose received adds to the risk of
developing cancer, or mutating genes
in the reproductive cells.
The radioactive elements “routinely”
emitted from nuclear power plants into
the air can be inhaled, or ingested
when they concentrate in the food
chain – in vegetables and fruit – and
are then further concentrated in various
internal organs in humans.
Similarly, the millions of gallons of
cooling water flushed daily from a
nuclear reactor into the always adjoining
water source (lake, river or sea)
contaminate it with radioactive materials
which bioconcentrate
hundreds
of times in the aquatic food chain.
In 2008, a major German study found
large increases in infant cancers near
all German nuclear power stations.
This socalled
KiKK study (Childhood
cancers in the vicinity of nuclear
power stations) reported a
2.2fold
increase in leukaemia risks
and a 1.6fold
increase in embryonal
cancer risks among children under
five living within five kilometers of
all German nuclear power stations.
The KiKK study examined all cancers
at all 16 nuclear reactor locations
in Germany between 1980 and 2003,
and was commissioned by the German
Government's Federal Office for
Radiation Protection.
However, the KiKK study does not
stand on its own. A 2007 study by
researchers at the University of South
Carolina analysing 17 research papers
covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK,
Canada, France, USA, Germany,
Japan and Spain, also “show[ed] an
increase in childhood leukaemia near
nuclear facilities”. They found that
death rates for children up to the age
of nine were elevated by between five
and 24 per cent, depending on their
proximity to nuclear facilities, and by
two to 18 per cent in children and
young people up to the age of 25.
Incidence rates were increased by 14
to 21 per cent in zero to nineyearolds
and seven to ten percent in zero
to 25yearolds.
A French survey from 2008 of 26
multisite
studies of childhood
cancers near nuclear facilities came to
a similar conclusion.
Although the evidence is overwhelming,
pronuclear
scientists and the
government still deny that there is a
link between nuclear power and
cancer. Instead, they want to build
new nuclear power stations, thus
increasing our exposure to radiation.
More information:
http://www.ippnweurope.
org/en/
nuclearenergyandsecurity.
html

Local democracy dumped
With the 2006 Energy Review,
the government proposed a number
of initiatives “to reduce the
regulatory barriers for new nuclear
build”. EDF and others
interested in nuclear new build
demanded a “predictable and
efficient consents and approval
process”, getting rid of lengthy
planning inquiries such as these
had been for Sizewell B. The
Planning Act 2008 fasttracks
nuclear power stations and other
“nationally significant infrastructure
projects”, thus removing
a historic democratic decisionmaking
process.
Applications are centralised at
the new Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC): But, as Suffolk
Coastal District Council
deputy leader Andy Smith puts it:
“I don't think that the IPC has
been set up to say no. The problem
is that it was set up by the
government to ensure that it gets
the 'right' answer.”
In addition, a ‘preauthorisation’
system for reactor designs was
implemented. This followed
major pressure from the nuclear
industry, warning that the only
way to guarantee new power
stations open on schedule is to
fasttrack
the planning process
by prelicensing
reactors before
sites are selected – the socalled
“generic design assessment”.
However, the objective of this
kind of prelicensing
is clear: It
shields consideration of nuclear
safety from public scrutiny. Or,
as the government itself says: “It
should speed up the subsequent
sitelicensing
and consents process,
and offer more certainty to
investors at an earlier stage.”
Safety? Democracy? Money
makes the world go round.
Andreas Speck