nuclear-news

Fukushima, Flooding and the UK Government – behind the rhetoric of a planned new ABWR nuclear plant!

“There is no consistent signal of change in either storms or blocking near the UK in either ensemble of Met Office models or the ensemble of alternative models. Such changes as are seen are relatively modest, and the potential for substantial changes appears to be small.“

Posted to nuclear-news.net

Posted by Arclight2011

18 February 2014

A new report out today gives justification for a new generation ABWR reactor to be built in the UK. It comes with pretty pictures and a biased view of radiological damage.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280857/abwr_justification_volume_2_application.pdf

The report states that there are no issues with this plan and that even in the event of a major incident that there would be no insignificant health effects on humans. The effects on birds and animals are presumed to be negligable if there are no effects on humans.

The basis for this feel good factor is the WHO health report on the fukushima showing no significant health effects and Dr weightmans report and findings after his visit to the Fukushima Daichi nuclear accident site.

Looking at the report I noticed some slight differences of opinion shown in the choice of words

Commission of the National Diet of Japan in 2012 concluded that:

“Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly “manmade disaster” – “

Dr Weightman concluded that:

“The Fukushima accident highlighted the potential for multi-unit nuclear power stations to be affected by severe “natural disasters””

As to why the report plays down the health effects and therefore is able to say on the economics section;

“Based on the Government’s own analysis, adoption of the Proposed Practice is highly likely to be beneficial for the UK economy when security of supply and carbon reduction benefits are taken into account.

The risks of significant detriment to the UK economy from the Proposed Practice are very low”

See this link for some background info here;

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/08/is-the-uks-nuclear-backed-pension-bubble-about-to-burst-new-scientific-research-may-be-the-pin-that-pricks/

On mining uranium:

“We remain satisfied that stringent regulation here and overseas (where uranium is mined) provides adequate environmental safeguards to assess and mitigate the impacts.”

“Any additional radiological health detriment arising from uranium mining and extraction in support of the UK’s implementation of the Proposed Practice will thus be very small.”

A link that challenges these points;

World’s Poorest Suffer From Radioactive Sickness as Areva Mines for Uranium http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/24/worlds-poorest-radioactive-areva-uranium/

On atmospheric an liquid releases from the new reactor type:

It is also reasonable to conclude that average individual doses to the UK population as a whole would be at levels so small they would

be insignificant in terms of any radiological health detriment”

Needless to say that the report plays down the actual health effects on the ground that range from confirmed dozens of cases of thyroid cancers in 14 year old children (average age), nosebleeds, diarrhea, polydactyl, leukemia, sudden heart attacks etc.

The thyroid cancers are not certainly not contested but they are ignored in the statistics as the nuclear industry does not want to admit such early effects.

In the report it states that Chernobyl was an order of magnitude of six larger that Fukushima but a recent study puts that figure at 5 times what is given by the nuclear corporations and their supportive international agencies like the IAEA.

In fact the report actually is incorrect concerning the actual dose received by the children and families of Fukushima.

“However, it would appear that “prompt evacuation” and “food restrictions” “limited” the doses received as a consequence of the accident, particularly to the thyroids of children from “intakes” of radioactive iodine. “

And this;

“In these areas the risk for some cancers may be somewhat elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups – at most, the additional cancer risk over a lifetime is about 1%. For exposed infants in these communities, the thyroid dose, mainly from the intake of radioactive iodine, could be in the range 100-200 mSv, which is much less than children received in the areas heavily contaminated by Chernobyl. The additional risk of thyroid cancer over a lifetime from this dose is about ½%.”

But, a recent and unrecognised study showed a wider degree of contamination. Here is the link to the EU report;

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/15/eu-funded-study-over-20000-square-miles-of-japan-potentially-contaminated-from-fukushima-releases-home-to-43-million-people/

And here are 2 links informing you about health issues and financial pressures;

UNSCEAR が被曝による健康被害はなかったという報告を出そうとしている！ UNSCEAR is going to publish a report that says there is no health hazards after the Fukushima disaster!

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/07/courts-will-be-able-to-prove-radiation-as-cancer-causer-by-dna-evidence/

Of course aside from health cover ups to save britians pensions, the ABWR report also says how safe from natural disasters the UK is and that Fukushma is geologically different.

“The UK is not subject to particularly extreme levels of natural hazards such as earthquake and tsunami by comparison with many areas of Europe and the rest of the world”

However, in recent months the UK has endured mulltiple storms and the report mentions that it gets its data from the UK climate data. But the UK data says it doesnt expect high sustained rainfall (see link and extract below), so the premise of the UK report after the fukushima disaster to make UK reactors safe is based on already out of date data as well as wrong data concerning the health effects in Fukushima.

On another tack gas fracking opens up underground voids that can cause sinkholes to appear on the surface undermining structures if the rain fall is heavy enough and the report did not want to go there either. But the didnt expect heavy rainfall anyway! The UK has seen many sinkholes and surface damage occur over the last 2 months without fracking.

From the UK ABWR report;

“As a result of these extensive and highly regulated provisions the risk of detriment resulting from extreme events causing widespread station impacts such as sustained loss of cooling or electrical power supplies is considered to be low.

And this; “The UK has robust regulatory requirements to ensure that climate change impacts are considered and adequate provisions are made to assure the safety of nuclear power plant, including those in the relevant National Policy Statements, as set out above.

Nuclear operators are responsible for funding their own flood risk management and coastal protection defences and for ensuring they are compatible with other defences in the area. This obligation remains in force until operation has ceased, and waste in interim storage has been removed from the site…..”

And here is how the nuclear industry takes climate change into account;

“ consistent understanding of potential climate change impacts for the UK is provided by UK Climate Projections. Their projections are based on a methodology designed by the Met Office and reflect scientists’ best understanding of how the climate system operates,……”

Page 104

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280857/abwr_justification_volume_2_application.pdf

And here is the actual climate data from the MET OFFICE

“Although there is a southward shift in the North Atlantic storm track in this model the increase in frequency occurs to the southwest of the UK giving little change over the UK. There is also little change in the intensity of UK storms in this model.

There are errors associated with both the position and strength of the present day storm tracks and these contribute to the large uncertainties in the future predictions of storms. The different results between the two models illustrate the lack of any robust changes in UK storms,…..” An this;

Annex 6.4 summary of the Climate change projections report states:

“There is no consistent signal of change in either storms or blocking near the UK in either ensemble of Met Office models or the ensemble of alternative models. Such changes as are seen are relatively modest, and the potential for substantial changes appears to be small.“

http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/22711

It seems to be time for the Met Office to update its models and tell the nuclear companies before we have our own UK based “Fukushima” and Dr Weightman could go back and talk to the real radiation cancer victims that his colleagues would prefer to ignore! in case it effects their pensions if the nuclear dirty secrets get out (And the secrets will if bloggers have there way!!) here is some info on yet another 200 page report ;

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/17/uk-climate-threat-to-nuclear-sites-a-real-and-present-danger/

Further reading here

75 children have now been diagnosed with thyroid cancers. 福島県、こどもの甲状腺がん75名に  Evacuate Fukushima  BY NELSON311 ⋅ FEBRUARY 8, 2014 In September 2012, the first case of thyroid cancer was diagnosed in a child out of 38 000 children. By September 2013, the number increase by 58 cases including 26 confirmed. By February 2014, a whooping 75 children out of roughly 270 000 are either confirmed or suspected to have contracted the disease. We all know what that means;  Those not confirmed WILL soon be confirmed and will be tag up to the exciting numbers by the next survey (probably around May 2014). NOTE; More than 100 000 children have yet to participate in the survey The sociopaths in charge are still denying this is not related to the ongoing nuclear crisis…….http://evacuatefukushimanow.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/    .http://evacuatefukushimanow.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/breaking-news-75-children-have-now-being-diagnosed-with-thyroid-cancers-

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/01/27/japans-cancer-cover-up-law-quietly-enacted-and-now-in-place-repost/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/14/nukes-over-wind-turbines-uk-research-development-policies-are-warped/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/12/radioactive-waste-55-illegal-nuclear-waste-dumping-in-england-1/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/12/uk-bradwell-on-sea-nuclear-plans-fears-nuclear-liquid-discharge-could-pollute-famous-oysters/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/11/costs-of-cleanup-of-sellafield-radioactive-wastes-getting-out-of-control/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/11/we-greatly-underreported-level-of-fushima-radiation-admits-tepco/

Power struggle over EU nuclear safety

….In its suggested amendments, the EC has proposed mandatory stress tests for European nuclear facilities every six years and a set of criteria to ensure national regulators are truly independent from interference from the government or from the industry when they make decisions……

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Power-struggle-over-EU-nuclear-safety-1302145.html

DNA Evidence Can Now Prove Link Between Cancers And Fukushima Radiation http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/dna-evidence-can-now-prove-link-between.html “

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/01/30/snowden-reveals-how-usa-spied-on-climate-change-summit-negotiators/

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/03/forgotten-victims-of-britains-nuclear-tests-on-christmas-island/

Senior Scientist at MIT Event: Japanese scientists censored — Not allowed to publish research that compared Fukushima to Chernobyl — Fukushima ‘arguably’ bigger 

http://enenews.com/senior-scientist-at-mit-event-japanese-scientists-censored-not-allowed-to-publish-research-that-compared-fukushima-to-chernobyl-fukushima-arguably-bigger

February 18, 2014 - Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized