Leaking nuclear power station in Kent, UK
Nuclear power station has been leaking radioactive waste ‘for months’, says Environment Agency. Dungeness B in Kent has been leaking more than agreed levels of Tritium Mail Online, By STEVE NOLAN, 18 April 2013 A nuclear power station in Kent has been leaking radioactive waste, which can increase the risk of developing cancer, for months according to the Environment Agency. Routine tests on boreholes drilled close to the Dungeness B plant found traces of tritium measuring more than seven times the agreed level……. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311217/Nuclear-power-station-leaking-radioactive-waste-months-says-Environment-Agency.html#ixzz2QyKFyAZl
47 arrested in UK protest against Trident nuclear missiles
Scrap Trident’: British police arrest 47 protesters at Faslane nuclear base RT April 15, 2013 Forty-seven people were arrested in a protest at the UK’s Faslane Naval Base in Scotland. ‘Scrap Trident’ anti-nuclear activists blocked the base’s entrances, lying on the ground in a human chain tied together with metal and plastic tubes….. The protesters called for the Trident nuclear weapons program to be scrapped, and for its £100 billion budget money spent instead on social programs. “I am taking action to stop the breach of the peace committed by the UK by owning and refusing to disarm the weapons of mass destruction,” Dominic Lindley, a 20-year-old development officer said as quoted by scraptrident.org.
“These weapons are both inhumane, illegal and their use can never be justified. In the next few years the UK has an opportunity to join the vast majority of countries in the world by disarming our pointless nuclear weapons and spend the £100 billion wasted on them on vital services for our communities like the NHS, Education and the Welfare State,” Lindley added….. http://rt.com/news/anti-trident-protest-faslane-879/
UK greatly underestimated nuclear decommissioning costs
Public Accounts Committee – Thirty-Seventh Report HM Treasury: Whole of Government Accounts 2010-11 HM Treasury: Whole of Government Accounts 2010-11 – Public Accounts Committee Contents
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/867/86706.htm
11 April 2013 “…… The C&AG’s report on the 2010-11 WGA shows the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s estimated cost of civil nuclear decommissioning increased by around £16 billion to £53 billion between 2007 and 2011. We asked the Treasury how the WGA would be used to influence any decision made in relation to future investments in the nuclear sector. The Treasury acknowledged that not considering these costs when the power stations were built had been a mistake, and considered that the critical issue was to factor in these costs in future, so that the taxpayer would not be burdened with unexpected additional costs of £60 billion.[ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Claverton/message/10673
How the BBC’s John Simpson obscures the truth on depleted uranium
Depleted Uranium: The BBC’s John Simpson does a hatchet job on Fallujah’s genetically damaged children by William Bowles http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/depleted-uranium-the-bbcs-john-simpson-does-a-hatchet-job-on-fallujahs-genetically-damaged-children-by-william-bowles/
Under the title ‘Fallujah’s children’s ‘genetic damage’ that old war horse ‘literally’ of the BBC’s foreign propaganda service, John Simpson, manages not to mention the phrase ‘depleted uranium’ when allegedly reporting on the alarming rise in birth defects that include cancer, leukaemia and a horrific rise in child mortality since the US demolished the city of Fallujah in 2004. And it’s not until right at the end of the piece that the US attack on Fallujah is even mentioned, let alone depleted uranium! Read more »
Cut back UK Trident nuclear programme – says defence expert
UK should consider scaling back nuclear deterrent, says think tank – VIDEO http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9970194/UK-should-consider-scaling-back-nuclear-deterrent-says-think-tank.html
The cost and commitment of replacing Trident with a like-for-like system means the Government should consider what the “most necessary element” of our deterrent is, says Hugh Chalmers from the Royal United Services Institute. The Government ought to consider the range of possible options for the UK’s nuclear deterrent given the country’s financial situation and the committment that renewing the Trident weapons system represents, says a nuclear analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.
“I would recommed that you have to look at all the options available and think very carefully about what is the most necessary element of our deterrent, and which elements of the UK deterrent are no longer required, so we can make cuts where we can, and how we can,” says Hugh Chalmers.
Mr Chalmers also played down the threat posed by North Korea, which has conducted three nuclear tests since 2006 as well as launching a long range rocket in December 2012.
“North Korea doesn’t currently present a direct threat to the UK.
“There’s a suspicion that they might be able to reach the US but they certainly cannot reach the UK, and their ability to mount a nuclear weapon on these missiles is also hotly debated,” he said.
UK soldier dying, after exposure to depleted uranium
Soldier dying after being exposed to uranium in Iraq must raise £110,000 for treatment because the NHS can’t help her Mail Online 4 Apr 13,
- Katrina Brown, 30, was exposed to radioactive material in Basra
- Diagnosed with rare systemic sclerosis which is slowly attacking her organs
- She believes the illness is linked to exposure to depleted uranium
- Says her only hope is having stem-cell transplant to regenerate her organs A soldier who developed a deadly illness after being exposed to uranium in Iraq is facing a race against time to raise the money she needs for potentially life-saving treatment.Katrina Brown, 30, was exposed to radioactive material while serving as a medic at a 600-bed military clinic in Basra in 2003.She was diagnosed with rare systemic sclerosis in 2008 which is slowly attacking her major organs – and will eventually lead to her death if left untreated.
Mrs Brown, who joined the Army at the age of 17, believes the illness is linked to exposure to depleted uranium.
She was handed a card before flying home from her 2003 tour warning her she had been in contact with radioactive materials. Read more »
British uranium group insists ! Japan must restart nuclear reactors
Uranium firm warns Japan it must return to nuclear power
The Times, Tim Webb
March 29 2013
A uranium enrichment group, part owned by the British Government, has warned that Japan’s decision to shut nuclear power stations will reduce demand for its services. (subscribers only) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3725842.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_03_28couldnt resist adding these links 
for further reading!
UK and Canada try to revive UK nuclear! Privatising nuclear fuel production!
….Bidders are lining up for for Urenco’s privatisation, which could put £4bn in the UK chancellor’s coffers….
…The newspaper said that Areva was holding talks with private equity firms including Apax and CVC, regarding a possible joint offer for Urenco, and that Morgan Stanley had been appointed to handle the sale, with a float also a possibility….
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/03/18/43219/
Russian protests against Areva and Urenco’s nuclear waste dumping
Areva and its counterpart Urenco, headquartered in Britain, have sent close to 140,000 tonnes of nuclear waste to Russia in the past 15 years.
DEPLETED URANIUM IN RUSSIA Protests as French uranium arrives in Russia Javno 2 Feb 2010 A cargo loaded with depleted uranium from France docked in Saint Petersburg, as Russian activists protested at the nuclear waste exports.
http://nuclear-news.net/2010/02/02/russian-protests-against-areva-and-urencos-nuclear-waste-dumping/
UK to sell out of nuclear power company URENCO
Nuclear sale set to net billions for UK The Government is holding a “beauty parade” for bankers to advise it over a potential sale of the UK’s multi billion-pound stake in nuclear power giant Urenco. Telegraph UK, By Emma Rowley, Rowena Mason, and Helia Ebrahimi 15 Jul 2012
The move marks a step towards a deal that could net British taxpayers
as much as £3bn, according to estimates that value the entire company
at £8bn-£10bn.
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/07/16/uk-to-sell-out-of-nuclear-power-company-urenco/
UK – Areva, Toshiba eye nuclear fuel producer Urenco – sources
“…A financial markets source close to the discussions said that private equity houses KKR (KKR.N) and CVC were also interested in striking a deal for Urenco…”
By Karolin Schaps and Christoph Steitz
LONDON/BERLIN | Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:37pm GMT
(Reuters) - France‘s Areva (AREVA.PA) and Japan’s Toshiba Corp (6502.T) are considering bids for nuclear fuel producer Urenco, but British, German and Dutch authorities disagree over what to do with the ultra-secret firm, industry sources said.
Britain is keen to sell its 33 percent stake, and German utilities RWE (RWEG.DE) and E.ON (EONGn.DE) are talking to potential buyers over their combined 33 percent, but the Dutch government is not considering a sale.
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/01/22/uk-areva-toshiba-eye-nuclear-fuel-producer-urenco-sources/
Investors trying to boost price shares? soon to sell maybe?? – Arclight2011
Scotland cops the risks of dismantling Britain’s old radioactive submarines
Fears over Rosyth nuclear submarine waste http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/fears-over-rosyth-nuclear-submarine-waste-1-2869329 By TRISTAN STEWART-ROBERTSON 31 March 2013 SCOTLAND has been chosen for the pilot project to break up some of Britain’s old nuclear submarines, prompting fears it could become a dumping ground for radioactive waste. Read more »
UK does not need nuclear power for climate change obligations
Non-nuclear future
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/28/non-nuclear-future
The Guardian, Professor David Elliott Open University 28 March 2013
I was dismayed by the statement by Professor John Beddington, the
government’s chief scientific adviser, that a nuclear energy-free
future for the UK is not something the coalition is thinking seriously
about (Report, 26 March). You quote him as adding: “We really can’t
see a future for the UK energy sector, if we are to meet our climate
change obligations and have resilience in the power sector, without a
significant component of nuclear.”
The Department of Energy and
Climate Change has provided an extensive online energy modelling
system and invited interested people and organisations to use it. The
British Pugwash Group spent a year doing just that and recently
published the results asa set of 2050 energy Pathways. It included one
I helped with, which showed clearly that it was possible to meet the
UK’s energy needs at reasonable cost with no nuclear power, while
reducing emissions below current 2050 targets. Evidently we were wasting our time.
No deal in site between EDF and UK government, on nuclear subsidy
EDF, U.K. Unlikely to Meet End-March Deadline on Nuclear Subsidy -Sources, Fox Business News, By Geraldine Amiel and Selina Williams March 28, 2013 Dow Jones Newswires French electricity company Electricite de France SA (EDF.FR) and the British government are unlikely to meet a deadline at the end of March to agree on subsidies that would allow the construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.K., people familiar with the matter said.
The people said in recent days that although discussions are still ongoing, they aren’t intensive and neither side appeared to be willing to make any compromises.
“There’s no deal in sight, discussions are ongoing and if EDF doesn’t get the price that it believes is the right price then they won’t do it, they have no choice,” Read more »
UK’s Liberal Democrats do a U turn on nuclear power policy
A Liberal Democrat promise goes nuclear – Time for another ’sorry’
video? http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/03/26/a-lib-dem-promise-goes-nuclear/
By Andy McSmith , 26 March 2013
Looking back at page 59 of the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto, one
finds a promise to “reject a new generation of nuclear power
stations.”
Last week the Energy Secretary Ed Davey, a Lib Dem, gave the go ahead
for the first new nuclear power station in Britain for a generation,
at Hinkley C, in Somerset. Today, he and the Business Secretary Vince
Cable and another Lib Dem promised help to enable UK business to
compete in the global nuclear energy market.
Time for another ’sorry’ video?
UK will slug renewable energy providers for the costs of new nuclear
The question of state-sanctioned support for new nuclear power, paid ultimately by consumers, has become a fraught one for ministers.
Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk, 27 March 2013 Experts say decision to share cost of accommodating Hinkley Point reactors among providers amounts to subsidy for nuclear The row over subsidies for the UK’s new nuclear power stations has deepened after it emerged that the £160m-a-year cost of accommodating the giant reactors on the national electricity grid will be borne by all generators, including renewable energy providers. Read more »
EU rules do not permit UK to give nuclear operators fixed prices
British nuclear support plans flout EU rules: lawyers, Climate Spectator, 22 Mar 13 Britain’s plans to reward nuclear plant operators through fixed prices for low-carbon energy are illegal under existing EU rules and efforts to adapt them are likely to draw opposition from other member states, EU and legal sources said.
Britain plans to reform its electricity market to fix a minimum price for nuclear, wind and solar-generated power, which is carbon free.
The proposals are being assessed by the British parliament but the subsidy instruments, named contracts-for-difference (CfDs), will also require approval from the European Commission, the EU executive, under state aid rules.
“Neither under the current (…) nor under possible future frameworks could the CfD scheme for nuclear generators be declared compatible with European state aid rules,” said Doerte Fouquet, a lawyer specialised in EU law at Becker Buettner Held in Brussels. Read more »
European laws on competition may stall UK’s nuclear power plans
Nuclear power plans threatened by European commission investigation Proposed nuclear reactor in Somerset could be delayed by two years if competition directorate launches full-scale investigation, Juliette Jowit and Ian Traynor The Guardian, 14 March 2013 Britain’s planned nuclear reactor programme could be delayed for years, and the nation’s long-term energy policy thrown into turmoil, as European commission officials launch the first stage of a formal investigation into the use of taxpayer subsidies to support the development.
Sources in Brussels have indicated that Britain hopes to win approval for a multibillion-pound deal with French energy giant EDF at the initial stage, which usually takes two months.
But if after a preliminary investigation the EC’s competition directorate decides to launch a full-scale investigation, that would last at least 18 months and probably two years or more. Such an outcome is made more likely by reports that ministers and EDF are discussing a minimum or “strike” price for the nuclear-generated electricity of a little under £100 per megawatt hour – nearly double the current market rate. Read more »
Britain’s subsidies for nuclear power – unfair guarantees
Nuclear power’s place in a safer, cleaner Britain The Guardian, Professor Sue Roaf Edinburgh. 24 February 2013 The £240bn pledged in subsidies for new nuclear power stations in Britain would give £10,000 to each home in Britain so they could all install solar hot water, solar electric systems, controls and new boilers, where necessary with insulation and draught-stripping, and help take every home in Britain out of fuel poverty.
The solar option helps cut energy demand from homes by 50%-75%, saving huge amounts in NHS costs for mental and physical health. Solar systems generate electricity at less than half the C02 life-cycle costs for nuclear. Most importantly the nuclear route puts more people, every year, into fuel poverty as prices rise, putting profits into the pockets of Big Energy and Big Construction. The solar option actually builds local businesses and community resilience. The Arab spring showed us the power of people who can’t pay their bills. Can anyone tell me one good reason for choosing the nuclear over the solar option if our aim is to build a stronger, safer, cleaner, healthier Britain?
Chris Osman Oxford.There should be only two guarantees to nuclear operators: (a) that they can sell electricity at the price required to cover their costs, and (b) that they are guaranteed to be able to sell some agreed fraction (say 50%) of the output of their reactors while operational, regardless of the cost they have to charge. If the operators have to charge double the standard rate, then tough – it would expose the myth that nuclear fission is an economically competitive way of generating electricity.
International treaties enable the huge economic impact of a nuclear incident to be covered by governments, and thence the general public, instead of the operators. Operators should not be allowed to go bankrupt in the event of a serious incident but instead be required to charge whatever higher price for electricity from other reactors is necessary to cover the full cost. If this is 10 times the normal cost of electricity, again, tough.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/24/nuclear-energy-safer-cleaner-healthier-uk
SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
- AUDIO About San Onofre Nuclear plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – NRC: Lapdog or Watchdog? http://www.fairewinds.org/content/nrc-lapdog-or-watchdog
- and this Japan’s nuclear safety record criticised by regulator http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/japans-nuclear-safety-record-criticised-by-regulator/1132464
- VIDEO: Great Haste Made Great Waste at Hanford http://fairewinds.org/podcast/great-haste-made-great-waste-at-hanford
- and this VIDEO Printing Australia’s Largest Solar Cells
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/19/printing-australias-largest-solar-cells/#I2hPrL1dDL6WTXwD.99 - and this VIDEO: Japan to open nuclear plant http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3761126.ht
From Fukushima to New York: Continuing Dangers of Nuclear PowerEVENTS
San Onofre at the No Nukes Brink: It’s Time to Take Action & WIN!!!
http://www.nukefree.org/stop-san-onofre-re-start-call-petition-now
Women and nuclear radiation – Mary Olson speaks
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
-
Archives
- May 2013 (387)
- April 2013 (383)
- March 2013 (392)
- February 2013 (424)
- January 2013 (502)
- December 2012 (460)
- November 2012 (520)
- October 2012 (522)
- September 2012 (492)
- August 2012 (546)
- July 2012 (362)
- June 2012 (312)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- rare earths
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
