Worker at Hinkley Point nuclear station has now developed coronavirus COVID-19
Nuclear and other toxic wastes dumped in Beaufort’s Dyke, which lies between Scotland and Northern Ireland
The National 4th March 2020, FOR decades, Scotland has been used by the Ministry of Defence to dump
everything from nuclear waste to unwanted munitions. For example,
Beaufort’s Dyke, which lies between Scotland and Northern Ireland, is
packed with laboratory waste, chemical munitions and artillery rockets. The
decision by the MoD to use it as a dumping ground has effectively ruled out
any possibilty of using that crossing for a Scotland to Northern Ireland
bridge (if ever such a thing was viable in the first place).
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18280377.uk-used-scotland-nuclear-dumping-ground-decades/
We can now see the full horror of nuclear plans for Bradwell B
|
BANNG 4th March 2020, Bradwell B to use Cooling Towers. At last we can see the full horror of what is proposed for Bradwell B! The pre-application for planning permission public consultation documents have just been published by the Chinese developer.
TV 4th March 2020, People in Bradwell-on-Sea in Essex will get to have their say on plans for a new nuclear power station from today. A 12 week public consultation is starting on proposals for Bradwell B – a twin reactor on the same site as a power station which stopped operating in 2002. The consultation will include fifteen exhibition events across Essex which will give local residents the chance to review the proposals. |
|
Protesters call for Capenhurst Urenco nuclear plant to be closed down
|
Protesters call for Capenhurst nuclear plant to be closed down https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/protesters-call-capenhurst-nuclear-plant-17873816 Demonstration held as Urenco celebrated its 50th birthday By
David HolmesChief reporter 6 MAR 2020
Urenco’s nuclear plant at Capenhurst this week celebrated 50 years since the government-owned international company was founded . But outside protesters lamented the damage to human health and the environment caused by disasters like Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan. Close Capenhurst campaigners argued the sector was unsafe from uranium mining to nuclear power production and the transportation and storage of highly radioactive waste.
Concerns have been raised about the Urenco plant itself which enriches uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors with the depleted uranium – a low level radioactive and toxic byproduct of the process – stored on site. Marianne Birkby, an anti-nuclear campaigner from Cumbria, speaking at the small demonstration outside the plant, said: “The start of the nuclear fuel cycle is here and where it ends up is Sellafield in Cumbria and every day, virtually, there’s nuclear waste transported on the roads, rail, sea and nobody wants the waste. “It’s all very well for Urenco to say ‘enriching the future’ and how fantastic it all is but nobody wants nuclear waste at the end of the day. And nuclear waste is the product of nuclear power.” Japanese campaigner Kaori Mikata-Pralat read out a statement on behalf of a group pursuing legal action against the Tokyo Electric Power Company over the 2011 Fukushima disaster when a tsunami swamped the plant leading to the release of radioactive contamination. Explaining that Fukushima had alerted her to the dangers, she told CheshireLive: “I wasn’t quite aware of the scale of the problem of this nuclear industry.” She has met victims of nuclear accidents, adding: “What they want is this tragedy should not be repeated any where in the world. Fukushima people suffered a lot.” Kaori said the ocean had also been poisoned. Even nuclear power stations functioning normally affected the eco-system as sea and river water was used to cool the reactors with the hot water put back, harming fish and plant life. Pointing at the sun, fellow protester Philip Gilligan said: “That nuclear power station up there is supplying the energy. It’s the only nuclear power station we want. So the energy coming to earth could easily be used with zero carbon output and zero nuclear. The problem is we need a bomb. And it’s hidden in statements like ‘energy as cheap as water’ which was current when Sellafield went critical in the ‘70s.” Urenco highlights the alleged green credentials of nuclear because there are no CO2 emissions during energy generation but the protesters claim the carbon footprint is ‘enormous’ after taking into account uranium mining, transport and the manufacture of thousands of tons of concrete for the installations. But what of the job losses if plants like Capenhurst, which employs 550 people, were closed? The campaigners argue the Government should reskill the workforce to produce renewable technology like solar panels. |
Nuclear power project Bradwell B public consultation to go live this week
Nuclear power project Bradwell B public consultation to go live this week, Maldon Standard , 4 Mar 20, By Pape Gueye @PMGueye “……… Proposals for Bradwell B were unveiled today as the first stage of consultation gets under way.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks until May 27, with exhibitions taking place at 15 venues across Essex…..
The proposals for Bradwell B will be developed over several years before the project submits an application to the UK Planning Inspectorate.
The final decision whether to grant permission will be taken by the Secretary of State.
A group campaigning against Bradwell B is urging residents to attend the EDF energy and Chinese General Nuclear stage one consultation events and make their views known.
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has been campaigning against the power station plan.
A spokesman said: “Any support will be gratefully welcome, ranging from just turning up to spending the whole time at a venue demonstrating your concern.”
The first consultation takes place tomorrow at Steeple Village Hall from 2pm until 8pm.
To see the other consultation dates, visit banng.info. https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/18280459.nuclear-power-project-bradwell-b-public-consultation-go-live-week/
Visit bradwellb.co.uk.
Radioactive wastes into River Clyde could have devastating effects on community and wildlife
|
By Herald Scotland Online 1 Mar 20, Scotland’s national environment watchdog has denied claims the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is planning to increase discharges of radioactive waste into the River Clyde.Under the plans, liquid waste from reactors which power Royal Navy submarines at the Faslane and Coulport nuclear bases would be drained into the Gare Loch via a new pipeline.
Campaigners warned the rising discharges could have a devastating effect on surrounding wildlife and communities after a report by investigative journalism platform The Ferret stated emissions of one byproduct, cobalt-60, could rise by more than 50 times. …….. The Ferret reported the discharge of cobalt-60 would rise to 23.4 million units of radioactivity annually – around 52 times the current level. It added emissions of a second substance, known as tritium, would increase by 30 times to around 175,000 units, or ‘megabecquerels’, every year…….. SEPA’s public consultation is open until 13th Match and we welcome all responses. All responses will be reviewed in detail to ensure we continue to safeguard the environment and human health.” The bases are due to receive at least five more submarines in the coming years, including an ageing Trafalgar vessel and three new Astute submersible. The Ferret said a 50-strong group of Nuclear-Free Local Authorities (NFLA) had objected to the discharges. NFLA Scotland convener, Glasgow SNP councillor Feargal Dalton told The Ferret: “NFLA is particularly concerned about the considerable uncertainties in modelling doses and an under-appreciation of the effects of tritium”. “There are effective alternatives to nuclear powered submarines, as pioneered by the likes of Japan, and the Ministry of Defence should make a serious attempt to look at them.” https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18272691.mod-planning-dump-50-times-nuclear-waste-river-clyde/ |
|
Is Cumbria about to become the world’s plutonium dump?
Nuclear station Sizewell C will cause environmental damage on an unprecedented scale
Telegraph 23rd Feb 2020 Suffolk Wildlife Trust: We have serious concerns over the effect upon wildlife of Sizewell C and, despite years of working closely with EDF, we are far from convinced that the electricity giant is taking the impacts seriously.
We also believe that it will be impossible wholly to mitigate or
compensate for much of the negative impact on wildlife. The current plans
suggest that we will lose between 20 and 30 acres of nationally important
land that is supposedly protected by its Site of Special Scientific
Interest status. This equates to covering roughly 10 football pitches of
rare fen habitat in concrete. Invariably there will be devastating habitat
loss for birds such as kingfisher and for rare mammals such as water vole
and otters. EDF has made little attempt to minimise these losses.
Suffolk Preservation Society: The proposed nuclear power plant at
Sizewell C will cause environmental damage on an unprecedented scale in a
highly sensitive location, much of which is designated an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. The construction phase will bring massive
disruption to communities in East Suffolk over many years and will
permanently change our landscapes. Suffolk’s environment is remarkably
undeveloped and is characterised by a sense of remote wildness. The
tranquillity provides a high quality of life for residents and is a major
draw for tourists. However, this isolation is fragile and could easily be
lost forever. The impact of a development such as Sizewell C upon heritage
sites – including an abbey, churches, farmhouses and other vernacular
buildings that contribute to the special qualities of Suffolk – will be
considerable. The intrusion of new roads to cope with a massive increase in
HGV traffic, spoil heaps, borrow pits, and accommodation for up to 3,000
workers will be felt across numerous locations. Development of the Sizewell
site cannot be at unlimited cost to the quality and character of our county
and its communities.
Outage’s at EDF’s Hinkley nuclear station extended until June
EDF Energy extends outages at Hinkley Point B nuclear plant https://www.reuters.com/article/edf-energy-nuclear/update-1-edf-energy-extends-outages-at-hinkley-point-b-nuclear-plant-idUSL5N2AO3DT
|
A planned outage at Britain’s Hinkley Point B-8 nuclear reactor has been extended by three months, data from EDF Energy shows. The 480 megawatt reactor went offline on Friday night and was originally due to return to service on March 17. The restart date has now been extended to June 5.
An upcoming outage from April at Hinkley Point B-7 reactor has been extended to June 20 from May 19.“We have decided to take more time to complete the forthcoming inspection outages at Hinkley Point B to allow for additional analysis and review of the core inspection findings which as always we will share with our regulator, ONR,” a company spokesman said, referring to the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The reactors have to undergo such inspections after cracks developed faster than expected in graphite bricks in the reactor core at another of the company’s nuclear fleet in Britain. Reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by Edmund Blair and Jane Merriman
|
|
|
Extradition case for Julian Assange – how it will proceed
Julian Assange’s extradition case is finally heading to February 24, 2020 Holly Cullen, Adjunct professor, University of Western AustraliaThe extradition hearing to decide whether to send Julian Assange to the United States to be tried for publishing classified military documents on Wikileaks is expected to finally begin today in London.Assange is charged with 17 counts under the Espionage Act, involving receipt, obtaining and disclosing national security information. He has also been charged with one count of conspiracy to assist Chelsea Manning to crack a US Department of Defense password to enable her to access classified information.
Assange has been in Belmarsh prison since his arrest in April 2019. He had been in solitary confinement in a prison medical unit, but was recently moved into a less isolated section of the prison due to concerns about his mental health.
From May to September of last year, Assange served a sentence for bail absconding, but since then has been waiting for the extradition hearing.
How will the process play out? Continue reading
Britain buying new nuclear warheads from USA: Pentagon knew about it, UK Parliament did not
|
The revelation has dismayed MPs and experts who question why they have learned of the move – which will cost the UK billions of pounds – only after the decision has apparently been made. It has also raised questions about the UK’s commitment to staunching nuclear proliferation and the country’s reliance on the US for a central plank of its defence strategy. Earlier this month, Pentagon officials confirmed that its proposed W93 sea-launched warhead, the nuclear tip of the next generation of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, would share technology with the UK’s next nuclear weapon, implying that a decision had been taken between the two countries to work on the programme. In public, the UK has not confirmed whether it intends to commission a new nuclear warhead. The Ministry of Defence’s annual update to parliament, published just before Christmas, says only: “Work also continues to develop the evidence to support a government decision when replacing the warhead.” But last week Admiral Charles Richard, commander of the US strategic command, told the Senate defence committee that there was a requirement for a new warhead, which would be called the W93 or Mk7. Richard said: “This effort will also support a parallel replacement warhead programme in the United Kingdom, whose nuclear deterrent plays an absolutely vital role in Nato’s overall defence posture.” Ed Davey, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “It is totally unacceptable that the government seems to have given the green light to the development of new nuclear weapon technologies with zero consultation and zero scrutiny. Britain under Johnson increasingly looks like putty in Trump’s hands. That Britain’s major defence decisions are being debated in the United States, but not in the UK, is a scandal. Under Johnson, it seems that where Trump leads, we must follow.” ………. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/22/pentagon-gaffe-reveals-uk-deal-replace-trident-nuclear-weapon |
|
Huge rise predicted for Britain’s seas and tidal rivers
Nuclear Energy Agency’s “pretend transparency”
| “ |
Nuclear Energy Agency’s Janus-like approach to nuclear transparency: a case study in obstruction, 21 February 2020 By Dr David Lowry, Nuclear Transparency Watch
![]() “…………. Conclusion
NEA cannot make publicity it is hosting an international meeting on stakeholder engagement, but only allow well-resourced stakeholders to participate, having allocated no budget line for accommodation or travel for civil society organisations (CSOs). Initially, NEA refused to reveal which Civil Society / NGO groups had shown up to participate, because – I believe – they were embarrassed that so few were there. Aside from representatives of civil society groups invited (and remunerated) as speakers, there was virtually no civil society representation. The final list of attendees, released after four months of pressure from me, shows the balance of participants was about 95% pro nuclear institutional interests, 5% civil society or non-aligned interested parties. To label such an imbalanced event a “Stakeholder Engagement” meeting is an abuse of language. The nuclear industry cannot be allowed to pretend they believe in transparency, then practice secrecy, as NEA did in this sorry saga. Because, like a dog with a bone, I refused to let go in this, I finally forced disclosure. But this should have come automatically. NEA needs to learn the lessons: the first is, it needs to abide by the dictionary definition of transparency, and deliver it in future! http://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/activities/transparency-and-public-participation/nuclear-energy-agencys-janus-like-approach-to-nuclear-transparency-a-case-study-in-obstruction.html
|
|
Chinese-led nuclear company pretending that Sizewell project is a ‘fait accompli’ – no, it is far from it.
BANNG 1
020, The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has learned that GNSL, the Chinese-led company seeking to build a mammoth new nuclear power station at Bradwell, is preparing to launch its pre-application public consultation for planning permission later this year.
This will be long before detailed discussions with the nuclear regulators are concluded. There are major issues and challenges still to be confronted. ‘It seems that the Chinese developers are taking a risk in trying to present the public and politicians with an apparent ‘fait accompli’ well before major design
and environmental hurdles have been crossed’ said Prof. Andy Blowers,
Chair of BANNG.
GNSL greeted the announcement that the Generic Design
Assessment (GDA) for Bradwell B had begun Step 4 as a major milestone,
clearing the path for deployment of Chinese nuclear technology in Britain.
That is far from the case. Moving to Step 4 in the GDA is like reaching a
hurdle, not passing a milestone. It is at this stage that all the tricky
issues facing the Bradwell B project must be confronted, including the
cooling system, site suitability, security, coastal defence, impacts on
marine and terrestrial environments and so on.
Step 4 is a long and intensive process between the developer and the independent regulators, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency (EA). It is not expected to be concluded for another two years. A pre-application should follow, not overlap, Step 4 of the GDA.
https://www.banng.info/news/press-release-18th-february-2020/
UK’s new nuclear projects headed to be submerged due to climate change?
Speeding Sea Level Rise Threatens Nuclear Plants https://www.ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-nuclear-plants-2645160125.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2 Climate News Network, Feb. 15, 2020 By Paul Brown
The latest science shows how the pace of sea level rise is speeding up, fueling fears that not only millions of homes will be under threat, but that vulnerable installations like docks and power plants will be overwhelmed by the waves.
New research using satellite data over a 30-year period shows that around the year 2000 sea level rise was 2mm a year, by 2010 it was 3mm and now it is at 4mm, with the pace of change still increasing.
The calculations were made by a research student, Tadea Veng, at the Technical University of Denmark, which has a special interest in Greenland, where the icecap is melting fast. That, combined with accelerating melting in Antarctica and further warming of the oceans, is raising sea levels across the globe.
The report coincides with a European Environment Agency (EEA) study whose maps show large areas of the shorelines of countries with coastlines on the North Sea will go under water unless heavily defended against sea level rise.
Based on the maps, newspapers like The Guardian in London have predicted that more than half of one key UK east coast provincial port — Hull — will be swamped. Ironically, Hull is the base for making giant wind turbine blades for use in the North Sea.
The argument about how much the sea level will rise this century has been raging in scientific circles since the 1990s. At the start, predictions of sea level rise took into account only two possible causes: the expansion of seawater as it warmed, and the melting of mountain glaciers away from the poles.
In the early Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports back then, the melting of the polar ice caps was not included, because scientists could not agree whether greater snowfall on the top of the ice caps in winter might balance out summer melting. Many of them also thought Antarctica would not melt at all, or not for centuries, because it was too cold.
Both the extra snow theory and the “too cold to melt” idea have now been discounted. In Antarctica this is partly because the sea has warmed up so much that it is melting the glaciers’ ice from beneath — something the scientists had not foreseen.
Alarm about sea level rise elsewhere has been increasing outside the scientific community, partly because many nuclear power plants are on coasts. Even those that are nearing the end of their working lives will be radio-active for another century, and many have highly dangerous spent fuel on site in storage ponds with no disposal route organized.
Perhaps most alarmed are British residents, whose government is currently planning a number of new seaside nuclear stations in low-lying coastal areas. Some will be under water this century according to the EEA, particularly one planned for Sizewell in eastern England.
The agency’s report says estimates of sea level rise by 2100 vary, with an upper limit of one meter generally accepted, but up to 2.5 meters predicted by some scientists. The latest research by Danish scientists suggests judiciously that with the speed of sea level rise continuing to accelerate, it is impossible to be sure.
A report by campaigners who oppose building nuclear power stations on Britain’s vulnerable coast expresses extreme alarm, saying both nuclear regulators and the giant French energy company EDF are too complacent about the problem.
The report said: “Polar ice caps appear to be melting faster than expected, and what is particularly worrying is that the rate of melting seems to be increasing. Some researchers say sea levels could rise by as much as six meters or more by 2100, even if the 2°C Paris target is met.
“But it’s not just the height of the rise in sea level that is important for the protection of nuclear facilities, it’s also the likely increase in storm surges. An increase in sea level of 50cm would mean the storm that used to come every thousand years will now come every 100 years. If you increase that to a meter, then that millennial storm is likely to come once a decade.
Bearing in mind that there will probably be nuclear waste on the Hinkley Point C site [home to the new twin reactors being built by EDF in the West of England] until at least 2150, the question neither the Office of Nuclear Regulation nor EDF seem to be asking is whether further flood protection measures can be put in place fast enough to deal with unexpected and unpredicted storm surges.”
-
Archives
- November 2026 (94)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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









