A powerful message on the seismic dangers in Hinkley Point C nuclear construction. It would be cheaper to pull out now.
Radiation Free Lakeland 12th Sept 2020, Seismic Warnings – if not now when will the Government Scrap Hinkley C? This week there was yet another earthquake recorded in the Bristol area. It was small but significant, contributing to the well documented seismic activity of the area. If eyewatering costs, long delays, a mental and physical health crisis among the employees building Hinkley Point C are not enough to scrap this hubristic nuclear new build plan then the seismic warnings should be.
This insane project next to operational reactors has seen the geological stresses of the biggest pours of concrete in the UK
alongside three huge tunnels being bored below the seabed. German based multi-national company Herrenknecht built the hugely expensive tunnel boring machines which will be dumped under the Bristol Channel once done.
A total of 38,000 concrete segments are needed to support the tunnels, which would transfer 120,000 litres of water per second for the new nuclear plant when finished. The Bristol area is seismically active so to put increased geological stress deliberately in the vicinity of existing nuclear reactors is the kind of hubris that disaster movies are made of.
Scrapping Hinkley C now and paying off the developers would be far cheaper and far safer than continuing down this route to nuclear disaster.
Unmarked ?nuclear convoy with strong military police guard sweeps through Bristol city centre
This is the moment an unmarked military and police convoy stopped the traffic and stunned drivers and commuters as it swept through the city centre of Bristol this week.
The 14-vehicle convoy was captured on camera as it held up traffic on a main road into Bristol, and then headed out of the city on the M32.
The convoy began with a military police 4×4 car and then went on to include two police cars, three large police vans, another police 4×4, three large army people carriers and what appeared to be the subject of the guard of the convoy – four large LGV lorries with large unmarked containers on the trailers.
The brief video of the convoy was posted on social media within minutes of being spotted at around 7.50am on Wednesday, September 9 this week, and prompted a range of speculation as to what exactly was going on.
There was speculation that the convoy was operated by the AWE, the Atomic Weapons Establishment, an organisation which handles all the nuclear fuel for submarines and material for Britain’s nuclear weapons.
The AWE is based at Aldermaston, at a base just the other side of Newbury in Berkshire. People commenting on the video, which went viral on Facebook, said they had seen many similar convoys around that area, but they usually took place in the middle of the night so did not attract attention……… https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/watch-moment-unmarked-nuclear-convoy-4510383
Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 8
 Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 8, Craig Murray September 10, 2020 The great question after yesterday’s hearing was whether prosecution counsel James Lewis QC would continue to charge at defence witnesses like a deranged berserker (spoiler – he would), and more importantly, why?
QC’s representing governments usually seek to radiate calm control, and treat defence arguments as almost beneath their notice, certainly as no conceivable threat to the majestic thinking of the state. Lewis instead resembled a starving terrier kept away from a prime sausage by a steel fence whose manufacture and appearance was far beyond his comprehension. Perhaps he has toothache. PROFESSOR PAUL ROGERS The first defence witness this morning was Professor Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. He has written 9 books on the War on Terror, and has been for 15 years responsible for MOD contracts on training of armed forces in law and ethics of conflict. Rogers appeared by videolink from Bradford. Prof Rogers’ full witness statement is here. Edward Fitzgerald QC asked Prof Rogers whether Julian Assange’s views are political (this goes to article 4 in the UK/US extradition treaty against political extradition). Prof Rogers replied that “Assange is very clearly a person of strong political opinions.” Fitzgerald then asked Prof Rogers to expound on the significance of the revelations from Chelsea Manning on Afghanistan. Prof Rogers responded that in 2001 there had been a very strong commitment in the United States to going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Easy initial military victories led to a feeling the nation had “got back on track”. George W Bush’s first state of the union address had the atmosphere of a victory rally. But Wikileaks’ revelations in the leaked war logs reinforced the view of some analysts that this was not a true picture, that the war in Afghanistan had gone wrong from the start. It contradicted the government line that Afghanistan was a success. Similarly the Wikileaks evidence published in 2011 had confirmed very strongly that the Iraq War had gone badly wrong, when the US official narrative had been one of success. Wikileaks had for example proven from the war logs that there were a minimum of 15,000 more civilian deaths than had been reckoned by Iraq Body Count. These Wikileaks exposures of the failures of these wars had contributed in large part to a much greater subsequent reluctance of western powers to go to war at an early stage. Fitzgerald said that para 8 of Rogers’ report suggests that Assange was motivated by his political views and referenced his speech to the United Nations. Was his intention to influence political actions by the USA? Rogers replied yes. Assange had stated that he was not against the USA and there were good people in the USA who held differing views. He plainly hoped to influence US policy. Rogers also referenced the statement by Mairead Maguire in nominating Julian for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Rogers stated that Assange had a clear and coherent political philosophy. He had set it out in particular in the campaign of the Wikileaks Party for a Senate seat in Australia. It was based on human rights and a belief in transparency and accountability of organisations. It was essentially libertarian in nature. It embraced not just government transparency, but also transparency in corporations, trade unions and NGOs. It amounted to a very clear political philosophy. Assange adopted a clear political stance that did not align with conventional party politics but incorporated coherent beliefs that had attracted growing support in recent years. Fitzgerald asked how this related to the Trump administration. Rogers said that Trump was a threat to Wikileaks because he comes from a position of quite extreme hostility to transparency and accountability in his administration. Fitzgerald suggested the incoming Trump administration had demonstrated this hostility to Assange and desire to prosecute. Rogers replied that yes, the hostility had been evidenced in a series of statements right across the senior members of the Trump administration. It was motivated by Trump’s characterisation of any adverse information as “fake news”. Fitzgerald asked whether the motivation for the current prosecution was criminal or political? Rogers replied “the latter”. This was a part of the atypical behaviour of the Trump administration; it prosecutes on political motivation. They see openness as a particular threat to this administration. This also related to Trump’s obsessive dislike of his predecessor. His administration would prosecute Assange precisely because Obama did not prosecute Assange. Also the incoming Trump administration had been extremely annoyed by the commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence, a decision they had no power to revoke. For that the prosecution of Assange could be vicarious revenge. Several senior administration members had advocated extremely long jail sentences for Assange and some had even mooted the death penalty, although Rogers realised that was technically impossible through this process. Fitzgerald asked whether Assange’s political opinions were of a type protected by the Refugee Convention. Rogers replied yes. Persecution for political opinion is a solid reason to ask for refugee status. Assange’s actions are motivated by his political stance. Finally Fitzgerald then asked whether Rogers saw political significance in the fact that Assange was not prosecuted under Obama. Rogers replied yes, he did. This case is plainly affected by fundamental political motivation emanating from Trump himself. James Lewis QC then rose to cross-examine for the prosecution. His first question was “what is a political opinion?” Rogers replied that a political opinion takes a particular stance on the political process and does so openly. It relates to the governance of communities, from nations down to smaller units………. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?fbclid=IwAR1SSVvRVbh8_y-5pargeR-U2E6JHQDcGUq_752VyejbktpjIbMY-g-MdnA |
Scottish peace activist calls for timetable for the removal of nuclear weapons and submarines if independence is achieved
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/scottish-peace-activist-calls-timetable-removal-nuclear-weapons-and-submarines-if
A LEADING peace activist in Scotland has urged the government to produce a timetable for the removal of British nuclear weapons and submarines from their Scottish base if independence is achieved.
Isobel Lindsay, a long-time Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament campaigner, warned that the Westminster Parliament would attempt to “buy time” and maintain its Trident submarine base at Faslane on the west coast of Scotland in the event of a vote for independence.
Writing in pro-independence newspaper The National, Ms Lindsay said: “It is obvious what the Trident negotiating pitch of the UK
government will be in independence negotiations.
“Buy time, and as soon as they get a concession on that, they know they won’t have to worry. Scotland yields to pressure and they will keep on getting their lease extended.
“This is why a very clear and tight timetable for removal is essential from the start.”
Ms Lindsay said that before the 2014 referendum, a scenario was being prepared using the threat of vetoing Scotland’s EU membership as the bargaining chip for retaining Trident on the Clyde.
“That bargaining chip is no longer there, so there is talk about buying off the Jocks by paying for their lease,” she said.
“I think we know about being bought and sold.”
Faslane and the nuclear-weapons storage facility eight miles away at Coulport have been frequently targeted for protests by disarmament campaigners.
The SNP has said that support for independence is growing in the face of Westminster chaos and incompetence, with a Survation poll today putting support for independence at 53 per cent – the seventh poll in a row showing “Yes” ahead.
Britain’s National Audit Office warns on costs of cleaning up old nuclear plants
|
Estimates of the cost to clear up 12 of the UK’s earliest nuclear power sites have increased by nearly £3bn since 2017 and there remains “inherent uncertainty” over the final bill, the country’s public spending watchdog has warned. The National Audit Office on Friday published its latest report into the long-running saga around the decommissioning of two research sites and 10 early nuclear power stations in Britain, which came to be known as the “Magnox” plants due to the magnesium alloy that was used to cover the fuel rods inside their reactors. The spending watchdog also found that the costs to the taxpayer of a botched 2014 tender process to outsource the decommissioning to the private sector was £20m higher than when it last investigated three years ago.
Cleaning up the Magnox sites, which were built before privatisation and include Hunterston A in Scotland and Hinkley Point A in Somerset, has turned into a costly and torturous affair. In 2016 the High Court ruled the 2014 competition for a 14-year contract to decommission the sites — which had been awarded to Cavendish Fluor Partnership, or CFP, a joint venture between UK-based Babcock International and Fluor of the US — had been “fudged” by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a body attached to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
A year later ministers, acting on legal advice, terminated the arrangement with CFP nine years early and renegotiated a shorter contract that ran until the end of August 2019. Decommissioning of the sites was then brought in-house by the NDA. ………. https://www.ft.com/content/6f313c84-d314-4160-b124-a68c4e85be09
|
|
|
Professor Paul Rogers – a witness explaining how Julian Assange is to be extradited for POLITICAL REASONS
Julian Assange clearly political, says extradition trial witness, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/julian-assange-clearly-political-says-extradition-trial-witness/news-story/735ef7d40551d52f4f7f12d9d6c318d7 JACQUELIN MAGNAY, FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT@jacquelinmagnay, THE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
Julian Assange’s nomination for the Senate during the 2013 federal election campaign and the establishment of the WikiLeaks political party the year before “clearly shows’’ the WikiLeaks founder has a political view and a libertarian standpoint, a witness has told the Old Bailey.
Professor Paul Rogers, the emeritus professor of peace studies at Bradford University, was called as a witness by Assange’s team to persuade the judge that Assange is being targeted for political means, and thus an extradition to the US should not be permitted under the Anglo-US extradition treaty.
In day three of the court hearing where Assange, 49, is objecting to extradition to the US, Professor Rogers said in written testimony that Assange’s expressed views, opinions and activities demonstrate very clearly “political opinions”. He cited how Assange had formed the political party to contest the Australian general election and “central of this is his view to put far greater attention to human rights’’.
He added: “The clash of those opinions with those of successive US administrations, but in particular the present administration which has moved to prosecute him for publications made almost a decade ago, suggest that he is regarded primarily as a political opponent who must experience the full wrath of government, even with suggestions of punishment by death made by senior officials including the current President.’’
But US prosecutor James Lewis QC said: “Assistant US Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg explicitly refutes that this is a political prosecution but rather an evidence-based prosecution.’’
In documents to the court, the prosecution says the investigation into Assange had been ongoing before the Trump administration came into office.
“Assange’s arguments are contradicted by judicial findings, made in the US District Court of the District of Columbia, that the investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information on the WikiLeaks website remained ongoing when the present administration came into office,” the prosecution says.
Mr Lewis added: “If this was a political prosecution, wouldn’t you expect him to be prosecuted for publishing the collateral murder video?’’https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/julian-assange-clearly-political-says-extradition-trial-witness/news-story/735ef7d40551d52f4f7f12d9d6c318d7
He said Assange was being extradited to face charges relating to complicity in illegal acts to obtain or receive voluminous databases of classified information, his agreement and attempt to obtain classified information through computer hacking; and publishing certain classified documents that contained the unredacted names of innocent people who risked their safety and freedom to provide information to the United States and its allies, including local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes.
Professor Rogers told the court the motivation of Assange and WikiLeaks was to achieve greater transparency and was political. The trial continues.
Julian Assange’s extradition hearing in London. What can we expect?
What’s at stake at Julian Assange’s long-awaited extradition hearing?, ABC 8 Sept 20, Julian Assange is fighting an attempt by the United States to extradite him to face charges on what it says was “one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States”.
It marks the culmination of a nearly decade-long pursuit by US authorities of the Australian-born WikiLeaks founder over the publication of secret documents and files in 2010 and 2011.
Assange’s extradition hearing had initially begun in February but was delayed for several months, and the coronavirus pandemic added additional delays, meaning Assange has been kept on remand in Belmarsh prison in south-east London since last September.
As reported by Background Briefing, Assange’s defence team will attempt to persuade the court he is unfit to travel to the US to face trial, and that the attempt to send him there is essentially an abuse of process.
How did he get to this point?
WikiLeaks made international headlines in April 2010 when it published a classified US military video showing an Apache attack helicopter gunning down 11 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, on a street in Baghdad in 2007.
Later that year, WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of US military messages and cables, a leak that saw former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning jailed……..
Assange, 49, has always denied the allegations, saying they were part of a US plot to discredit him and eventually extradite him to the US, and the investigation was eventually dropped in 2017.
He remained holed up in the embassy for seven years until April 2019, when the Ecuadorian government withdrew his asylum and Metropolitan Police officers arrested him for failing to surrender to the court over an arrest warrant issued in 2012……..
In May 2019, Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching bail conditions, and during that time the US Justice Department brought 18 charges against him.
What is Assange accused of?
Assange is facing 17 charges relating to obtaining and disclosing classified information, and one charge concerning an alleged conspiracy to crack passwords on government servers.
The US alleges he conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack into US military computers to acquire the classified information published by WikiLeaks.
What can we expect from this hearing?
The court must examine a series of factors before any extradition can be granted, such as if the alleged crimes have equivalent offences in the UK and could lead to trial.
“It’s what’s called double criminality, in other words, whether the offences for which Assange is being sought in under US law are broadly being recognised under UK law,” Professor Don Rothwell, from the Australian National University, told Background Briefing.
Prosecutors have argued there is no doubt his actions would amount to offences under the UK’s Official Secrets Act.
If the court agrees, it must then consider how extradition would affect Assange’s health.
Previous court appearances this year have been delayed due to health issues, and his lawyers say his efforts to protect himself from US extradition and being stuck inside the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years had taken its toll.
If the court accepted it would be detrimental to his health, it could open up the possibility of protecting Assange in the UK under European human rights law.
The magistrate may also take issue with how the prosecutors are seeking to impose American law on what Mr Assange is alleged to have done outside of US territory.
“In this matter, US law is seeking to extend all the way, not only from the United States, but into the United Kingdom and into parts of Europe and basically impact upon the activities that Assange has undertaken associated with WikiLeaks over 10 years ago,” Professor Rothwell said…….
Assange’s legal team contends the US is seeking to prosecute Assange for political offences and that he is thereby exempt from extradition under the terms of the UK-US extradition treaty…….
What happens next?
The hearing is expected to last between three and four weeks, with any decision made likely to be appealed and go to a higher court, meaning the legal battle would likely drag into next year and possibly beyond that.
If Assange is eventually extradited to the United States and found guilty, he faces a maximum 175 years imprisonment for the 18 offences listed in the indictment. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-09/julian-assange-what-does-extradition-hearing-mean/12642972
UK. For thehighly radioactive Dounreay nuclear site, a mobile robot will be used to identify the toxic structures
Press & Journal 8th Sept 2020 A mobile robot will be used for the first time in one of the most contaminated and inaccessible parts of the Dounreay nuclear plant to provide vital information on the next steps in its decommissioning. The technology will provide the first images in decades from inside the Caithness site’s Fuel Cycle Area (FCA).
The FCA consists of two reprocessing plants, waste stores and laboratory facilities where spent nuclear fuel was examined and reprocessed. As part of the site clean up, Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd (DSRL) is working with the Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear (Rain) Hub, a consortium of universities led by the University of Manchester, to explore ways to overcome some of
the challenges.
In 1951, Winston Churchill suggested dropping nuclear bombs on Russia
BOMBS AWAY Winston Churchill suggested dropping nuclear bombs on Russia in 1951.The Sun, Abe HawkenThe then leader of the opposition is said to have wanted his war strategy to involve using nuclear strikes to bomb Russia and China into submission.
He thought the best way to end the conflict was to give Russia an “ultimatum” and if they refused, he would threaten 20 to 30 cities with atom bombs.
Churchill then wanted to warn Russia it was “imperative” the civilian population of each named city was “immediately evacuated”.
He was convinced Russia would refuse their terms so he discussed plans to bomb “one of the targets, and if necessary, additional ones”.
Churchill hoped that by the third attack the Kremlin would eventually meet their terms.
The bombshell plans have come to light in a memorandum written by the New York Times general manager Julius Ochs Adler, according to The Times.
In it, he describes a conversation the pair had during lunch at Churchill’s home in Kent on Sunday, April 29, 1951……….
Richard Toye, head of history of the University of Exeter, found the note in papers belonging to the New York Times Company.
He said Churchill recommended a threat like this in 1949 when the Soviet Union did not have nuclear weapons.
However, he added that it was a revelation he was still contemplating a similar threat two years later.
He told The Times: “One can question his judgment at this point.”…………https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12621015/winston-churchill-nuclear-bombs-russia/
Hinkley Point B nuclear station could close down early – EDF
EDF Energy says UK’s Hinkley Point B nuclear plant could close earlier than planned
The 1 gigawatt (GW) plant in Somerset was due to be shut down permanently in early 2023. It began operation in 1976.
“It is possible we may need to move into defuelling within the next two years. We will review this decision in the same detailed way as we have with Hunterston B and expect to be able to confirm the outcome by the end of this year,” said a spokesman for EDF Energy, part of France’s EDF.
Last month, EDF Energy said it would start decommissioning its Hunterston B nuclear power plant in Scotland by January 2022 at the latest.
Both Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B have had issues with ageing, as cracks were found in graphite bricks which form reactor cores, prompting some industry experts to foresee their permanent closure soon.
Nearly all of Britain’s 9 GW nuclear fleet is composed of advanced gas-cooled reactors. A factor of ageing in that type of reactor is cracks in the graphite bricks.
Half of Britain’s eight operating nuclear power stations are due to move into decommissioning by March 2024, removing around 4 GW of power capacity…….. www.reuters.com/article/britain-nuclearpower/update-1-edf-energy-says-uks-hinkley-point-b-nuclear-plant-could-close-earlier-than-planned-idUSL8N2G65F8
Huge challenge to decontaminate Dounreay: ‘World’s deepest nuclear clean-up’.
|
Dounreay: ‘World’s deepest nuclear clean-up’ to begin, The first work in a clean-up of a 1950s-built shaft at a nuclear power research complex is to begin this year. BBC News, 9 Sep 20,
The shaft plunges 65.4m (214.5ft) below ground and poses one of the biggest challenges in the demolition of Dounreay in Caithness.
Radioactive waste was disposed there from 1959 until 1977 when an explosion ended the practice.
Tackling the shaft has been described as the “world’s deepest nuclear clean-up”…….
A £7.5m contract has been awarded for the first steps in this work, due to begin in late autumn, and also to carry out similar engineering work at another site at Dounreay called the silo.
It is described as being like a swimming pool with a concrete roof and was also used for the disposing of radioactive waste.
Engineering firms Nuvia and Graham Construction have been awarded the contract for work that would eventually lead to the waste being removed.
David Hubbard, of Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd, said: “The shaft and silo contain solid waste and sludge which must be retrieved and repackaged for safe above-ground storage…..
Dounreay, near Thurso, was the UK site for the development of fast reactor research from 1955 to 1994.
The facility on the north Caithness coast is in the process of being closed down, demolished and cleaned up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-54085592
|
|
INJUSTICE in the court? The extradition trial of Julian Assange
UK: Assange extradition hearing will be a key test for UK and US justice https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-extradition-hearing-will-be-a-key-test-for-uk-and-us-justice/?fbclid=IwAR2HY0lPIxV4m0h3u7ikxEmtaJ0m5YxUITtTgqmVViX03L6qsd40vHEwq2Y 4 September 2020,
US authorities must drop all charges against Julian Assange relating to his publishing activities, and UK authorities must reject the related US extradition request, said Amnesty International ahead of Julian Assange’s extradition hearing which resumes on Monday and is expected to last several weeks.
The hearing will decide on the Trump administration’s request for Julian Assange’s extradition to the US, where he faces a sentence of up to 175 years for publishing materials that document possible war crimes committed by the US military.
“This hearing is the latest worrying salvo in a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression. If Julian Assange is prosecuted it could have a chilling effect on media freedom, leading publishers and journalists to self-censor in fear of retaliation,” said Amnesty International’s Europe Director, Nils Muižnieks.
“If Julian Assange is extradited it will have far reaching human rights implications, setting a chilling precedent for the protection of those who publish classified information in the public interest.”
The US extradition request is based on charges that stem directly from the publication of classified documents as part of Assange’s journalistic work with Wikileaks. Publishing such information is a cornerstone of media freedom and the public’s right to access public interest information, and must be protected rather than criminalized.
n the US, Julian Assange could face trial on 18 charges, 17 of them under the Espionage Act; and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He would also face a real risk of serious human rights violations including detention conditions that could amount to torture or other ill-treatment, including prolonged solitary confinement. Julian Assange is the first publisher to face charges under the Espionage Act.
The fact that Assange was the target of a negative public campaign by US officials at the highest levels undermines his right to be presumed innocent and puts him at risk of an unfair trial.
“The UK must abide by its obligations under international human rights law, which forbid the transfer of individuals to another country where they would face serious human rights violations,” said Nils Muižnieks.
The case will begin at the Old Bailey, London, on the morning (9.30am UK time) of 7 September. Stefan Simanowitz will be outside the court with an Amnesty International spokesperson. Follow @StefSimanowitz for updates and analysis
Amnesty will have trial observers monitoring remotely the entire series of hearings. During the first week, Sebastian Elgueta (@sebelgueta), a UK based barrister, will be monitoring.
Background:
Amnesty International also has concerns with regard to Julian Assange’s physical and mental well-being, particularly with the spread of COVID-19.
Conditions in UK prisons and detention centres are substandard. It is imperative that health and safety protocols are put in place to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, while ensuring that prisoners’ and detainees’ rights are protected. Bail or release should be considered for any detainee or prisoner who has serious underlying health conditions and is particularly at risk of infection.
See Amnesty International’s statement on prison conditions for Assange here
EDF made exaggerated and unrealistic claims about local jobs to be provided by Sizewell nuclear power project
Ipswich Star 7th Sept 2020, Independent consultants have challenged the jobs and economic benefits that building a new twin reactor nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast will bring – labelling the claims as “exaggerated” and “unrealistic”.
EDF Energy has said that Sizewell C will give the county’s economy a £125million a year boost and create 25,000 job opportunities during the 10-year construction period and 900 skilled jobs when the power plant is operational. But an independent review of EDF’s Economic Statement, assessing the impacts of Sizewell C on Suffolk’s economy, by research and analysis consultancy Development Economics – commissioned by the Stop Sizewell C campaign – has criticised key aspects of the research and evidence submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
EDF though insists its project will deliver investment, jobs, skills, education and training for decades to come. And it says its Economic Statement in its planning application is fully compliant with relevant national policy. Development Economics though claimed some aspects were “exaggerated” and “unrealistic”. It questioned EDF’s claim of up to “2,410 jobs for Suffolk residents”, saying this included people travelling from up to 90 minutes away, which covers large population centres in Norfolk and Essex.
It said these local workers will be the overwhelming source of lower skilled roles, expected to fill 90% of jobs in ‘Site Support’ –
cleaners, bus drivers and security guards – compared with only 8% ofroles in professional and management. At peak construction 76% of the workforce will come from further away still and will have to be accommodated in the area.
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-independent-economy-report-1-6824930
Petition to Wales Parliament – demands an environmental assessment on Hinkley nuclear mud dumping
Welsh Parliament Petitions (accessed) 7th Sept 2020, Demand an EIA now on the dumping of radioactively contaminated mud in Welsh waters. We, the undersigned, call on the Welsh Government to invoke the
Environment (Wales) Act 2016 in respect of uncertainties, and to ensure
that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is carried out before any
further sediment from Hinkley Point nuclear power station can be dumped at
Cardiff Grounds. Don’t allow the Welsh government to break their own law!
The biggest nuclear site in Europe is at risk of blowing up
Why nuclear power is always going to be unsustainable
Energy Transition 3rd Sept 2020 The biggest nuclear site in Europe containing the world’s biggest stockpile of nuclear explosives is at risk of blowing up. What does this short-term decay tell us about the very long-term sustainability of a technology whose toxic waste last at least 24,000 years? Dr David Lowry takes a closer look.
|
|
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (330)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
