Brexit – the ‘coup de grace’ for Britain’s new nuclear?
Brexit curse hits nuclear power, new London runway, Ecologist, Paul Brown 29th June 2016 Following the vote to leave the EU, the UK’s energy and climate change policy faces major challenges, writes Paul Brown, with new nuclear power and a third London runway at Heathrow runway looking like the first casualties. …..Plans for four giant nuclear reactors to be built in Englandby the French are almost certain to be scrapped because opposition among trade unions in France has hardened since last week’s vote……. time is rolling by and Électricité de France (EDF) is due to make a ‘final investment decision’ in September to build two 1,650 MW nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in southwest England. They were expected to be followed by two more to the east of London.
Time for the ‘coup de grace’
The Hinkley decision, already postponed repeatedly, has been in doubt for months because of the parlous financial state of EDF and the increasing opposition of a group of French trade unions, whose members fear that the building of nuclear power stations in the UK would divert much-needed investment away from home.
There are also question marks about whether the nuclear design is viable at all, since construction delays and cost over-runs have dogged the prototypes, and none is yet producing electricity.
The backlash against the British decision to leave the EU will not affect the decision, according to the immediate reaction from EDF and the French government, but the chances of the scheme being given the go-ahead in September now seem remote.
Mycle Schneider, an independent nuclear and energy industry analyst based in Paris, says that the Brexit vote would hand EDF “the perfect occasion to pull the plug on Hinkley Point without losing face”. He believes that the Brexit vote represents a “disaster” for EDF’s plan, and that a decision to press ahead with Hinkley Point is unimaginable at the moment……
Can’t pay, won’t pay?
Until the Brexit vote, the UK government was committed to building 10 new nuclear power stations as part of its ‘low carbon’ plan for the energy sector. The programme always seemed improbable, given the state of the nuclear industry worldwide, but getting private investors to support such a policy now seems even less likely.
One of the unlooked-for side-effects of the decision is to take the UK outside theEuratom Treaty that safeguards nuclear materials from misuse. Since the UK has the largest stock of plutonium in the world, and a large trade in nuclear materials with Europe, the US and Japan, this creates serious problems over who now regulates the industry. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987861/brexit_curse_hits_nuclear_power_new_london_runway.htm
Brexit could result in Britain’s unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Nuclear Brexit Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 30 June 16, HUGH GUSTERSON Hugh Gusterson is a professor of anthropology and international affairs at George Washington University. His expertise is in nuclear culture, international security, and more
For those who favor disarmament, this would be good. For those who hoped Britain’s departure from the European Union would restore its glory on the world stage, it presumably would not…..
Insofar as pundits have speculated about the international security implications of Brexit, they have pointed out that British diplomats will be so focused on renegotiating trade agreements with the rest of the world that they will devote fewer resources to the turmoil in the Middle East and simmering tension with Russia, and that Britain will therefore be a less reliable ally for the United States. (This partly explains why Russian President Vladimir Putin greeted Brexit with a grin.) They assume, though, that Britain will remain strongly committed to NATO.
One problem with this assumption is that the UK may no longer exist as a country within a few years. It looks likely that, if Brexit proceeds, Scotland will withdraw from the United Kingdom, and there is a possibility that Northern Ireland will follow suit……
In the Brexit referendum, every single district in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and a decisive majority of Scots—62 percent—voted to stay. It now looks as if the only way they can remain in the EU is to secede from the United Kingdom and apply for EU membership as a separate nation. A poll taken after the Brexit vote found that 59 percent of Scots say they would now vote for independence from Great Britain. Nicola Sturgeon, the shrewd and charismatic leader of the Scottish National Party, has stated her interest in moving toward a second referendum on Scottish independence.
For 30 years, the Scottish National Party said that an independent Scotland would stay out of NATO. It narrowly reversed that position in 2012, but it remains adamantly opposed to the stationing of any nuclear weapons in Scotland. That could be a problem since all of Britain’s nuclear weapons are stationed in Scotland. …..
A British parliamentary report in 2012, written in response to increasing concerns that Scotland might secede from the United Kingdom, concluded that finding a suitable base to replace Faslane and Coulport would be “highly problematic, very expensive, and fraught with political difficulties.” For one thing, it would take 10 to 20 years to construct a new base. And according to a 2014 study, doing so would cost English taxpayers about £3 billion (or some $4 billion at today’s exchange rate, almost certainly an underestimate)—on top of the £20 billion it will already cost to replace the four decaying nuclear submarines. This money will be particularly hard to find if British GDP declines sharply, as predicted, following disengagement from the European single market.
That is assuming a suitable new site could even be found, but the three sites that have been discussed in the media all have significant problems……..
It is becoming evident that, in addition to all the negative consequences of Brexit opponents warned about, there will be additional unforeseen and unintended consequences that will only become clear over time. In a supreme irony, one of those consequences may be that the English nationalist vote strips Britain of its status as a nuclear power. http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-brexit9620
Scrapping Trident won’t destroy tens of thousands of jobs
Ignore pro-nuclear spin: CND says scrapping Trident won’t destroy tens of thousands of jobs https://www.rt.com/uk/349024-trident-jobs-cnd-replacement/30 Jun, 2016 Any threat to jobs resulting from a decision to scrap Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system must be seen in its actual context and not through the prism of pro-nuclear spin, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) claims in a new report.
Released on Thursday, “Trident and jobs: The employment implications of cancelling Trident replacement” picks apart the myth that scrapping the nuclear weapons would wipe out tens of thousands of jobs.
The government claims that “the current system and its replacement provide civilian jobs, some of them highly-skilled and well paid, many in deprived areas where alternative employment of the same quality is scarce,” said CND.
CND argues that the current figure of around 30,000 usually given for the number of jobs dependent on the current and proposed deterrents is overestimated, and that armed forces personnel and others must be subtracted from that sum in order to reach a true figure.
Those workers, the group says, would be reallocated to other parts of the military or set to work decommissioning the subs if the program was scrapped.
CND say the actual figure is closer to 11,000 and that Trident itself cannot justify the money required to continue funding it given that it is not self-sustaining, incredibly costly, and effectively useless.
Instead, they argue that “a host of industries are in need of investment, from wind and wave power, to nuclear decommissioning, to aerospace technology to marine industries and others.”
British industry as a whole “faces chronic skills shortages which public sector-led investment can address,” the group adds.
“The money saved by not replacing Trident would provide the finances for this program. This would amount to an industrial strategy for Britain with the existing workforce and regions at its core.”
At a cost of £205 billion, CND posit that replacing Trident cannot be justified on its own terms, and other uses for the money and the workers must be found.
Brexit vote- the finish for Hinkley nuclear power plan?
Brexit vote is ‘final nail in the coffin’ for £18billion Hinkley Point nuclear power station plans, says energy expert
Brexit vote could spell end for long-delayed Hinkley power station project
Energy expert Dr Paul Dorfman voiced concerns about £18billion scheme
He said French-owned EDF ‘extremely unlikely’ to invest in current climate
Dorfman said there were too many political uncertainties for the company
By STEPHANIE LINNING and SAM TONKIN FOR MAILONLINE, 29 June 2016 The UK’s Brexit vote is the ‘final nail in the coffin’ for an £18billion project to build a new power station at Hinkley Point, a leading energy expert says.
Dr Paul Dorfman, an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the Energy Institute, University College London, said EDF, a majority French-owned company, is ‘extremely unlikely’ to invest given the current economic climate.
The long-delayed project was due to have Hinkley Point power station producing 7 per cent of the UK’s electricity by 2017. But, if built, the earliest date it could now start doing so is 2025.
Even that looks a remote possibility according to Dr Dorfman, who told MailOnline Brexit was ‘the final nail in the coffin’ for Hinkley Point.
He said: ‘It gives everybody the chance to slip out without losing any more face.
‘How is France going to invest in the UK if the UK is no longer part of the union?
‘Not only that but the French nuclear industry has huge financial problems and unions are screaming that they don’t want it [Hinkley Point].’
Dr Dorfman, a member of the European Nuclear Energy Forum, also believes the knock-on effect would see plans for a third reactor at Sizewell power station in Suffolk ditched too.
‘If Hinkley fails, which it will do, then Sizewell will go the same way.’ he said. ‘That will have serious implications for the UK energy industry.’……..http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663424/Nuclear-power-station-likely-18billion-casualty-Brexit-vote-says-government-advisor.html
Hinkley nuclear power plan, and the costs of its radioactive wastes
Brexit might help UK to develop nuclear projects
5 ways Brexit would transform European energy, Politico, Sara Stefanini , 24 June 16 Central and Eastern Europeans would lose a powerful ally, while nuclear and renewable investors would face an uncertain world.A British vote to leave the European Union would force broad changes to the bloc’s energy policy, weakening its climate policy and removing a crucial Central European energy ally — but it could also give London far more freedom to pursue nuclear projects.
The U.K. is often an energy outlier in the EU, advocating nuclear power and shale gas sources shunned by others. And it tends to build alliances broadly aimed at keeping interference from Brussels to a minimum.
But both sides have a lot to lose.
A Brexit could undercut long-term climate policies in Brussels and London, and the EU would lose the U.K.’s pro-free market voice, which has historically helped tone down some more statist schemes coming from European capitals.
Here are the five ways that a Brexit would impact Europe’s energy and climate forecast:…….
4. The freedom to subsidize — maybe
One area the European Commission tries to avoid is state aid, particularly for energy projects.
But even when the Commission gives a green light, there’s the danger that another EU country might try to interfere. That’s what happened with Hinkley Point. Brussels approved a state aid plan in 2014, but Austria, backed by Luxembourg,challenged the decision in the European Court of Justice eight months later…….
Environmental advocates worry it would give the U.K. room to continue rolling back support for renewables in favor of other fuels.
“One of the reasons why the government has had to have a more sensible policy on these issues is because state aid disciplines have stopped it from throwing money at gas-powered stations and fracking and nuclear,” said Nick Mabey, chief executive of the environmental analysis group E3G……..http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-brexit-renewable-energy-hinkley-nuclear-interconnectors-gas-climate-emissions-paris/
Exit from the European Union could make it easier for Britain to develop nuclear power
A British vote to leave the European Union would force broad changes to the bloc’s energy policy, weakening its climate policy and removing a crucial Central European energy ally — but it could also give London far more freedom to pursue nuclear projects.
The U.K. is often an energy outlier in the EU, advocating nuclear power and shale gas sources shunned by others. And it tends to build alliances broadly aimed at keeping interference from Brussels to a minimum.
But both sides have a lot to lose.
A Brexit could undercut long-term climate policies in Brussels and London, and the EU would lose the U.K.’s pro-free market voice, which has historically helped tone down some more statist schemes coming from European capitals.
Here are the five ways that a Brexit would impact Europe’s energy and climate forecast:…….
4. The freedom to subsidize — maybe
One area the European Commission tries to avoid is state aid, particularly for energy projects.
But even when the Commission gives a green light, there’s the danger that another EU country might try to interfere. That’s what happened with Hinkley Point. Brussels approved a state aid plan in 2014, but Austria, backed by Luxembourg,challenged the decision in the European Court of Justice eight months later…….
Environmental advocates worry it would give the U.K. room to continue rolling back support for renewables in favor of other fuels.
“One of the reasons why the government has had to have a more sensible policy on these issues is because state aid disciplines have stopped it from throwing money at gas-powered stations and fracking and nuclear,” said Nick Mabey, chief executive of the environmental analysis group E3G……..http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-brexit-renewable-energy-hinkley-nuclear-interconnectors-gas-climate-emissions-paris/
Senior EDF managers want Hinkley nuclear project to be postponed
EDF Managers Tell UK MPs That Hinkley Point C Should Be Postponed http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2016/06/20/edf-managers-tell-uk-mps-that-hinkley-point-c-should-be-postponed
Plans & Construction 20 Jun (NucNet): Senior managers at EDF have told British MPs that a final investment decision (FID) on the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear project should be delayed until problems including the reactor design and “multi-billion litigation” over the Olkiluoto-3 project in Finland have been resolved.
The letter from EDF managers to the UK parliament’s energy and climate change committee is a setback for the proposed £18bn (€23bn, $26bn) nuclear station in Somerset, England. The station is a flagship of the government’s energy policy and is intended to provide seven percent of Britain’s electricity from about 2025.
In April, the state-controlled French company said it was delaying the FID until September while it consulted with trade unions.
A letter dated 13 June and addressed to Angus MacNeil, the chairman of the committee, from the Fédération Nationale des Cadres Supérieurs de l’Énergie (FNCS) union, “advises to delay the FID until better upfront industrial visibility is evidenced”.
Outstanding problems highlighted by in the letter include:
– Areva NP, the designer of the European pressurised water reactor (EPR) planned for Hinkley Point, “is currently facing a difficult situation”.
– The French nuclear safety authority (ASN) may not approve operation of the Flamanville-3 EPR under construction in northwest France due to various anomalies with the reactor vessel bottom and the reactor vessel head.
– There may be “identical flaws” in an Areva EPR being built at Taishan-1 in China.
– Litigation between Areva and the Finnish energy group TVO over delays to the Olkiluoto-3 EPR remain unsettled.
– An EDF offer to purchase Areva expired on 31 March, leaving “governance uncertainties upon the implementation of the Hinkley Point C project”.
The letter says that on 25 May, ASN declared at an annual hearing in the French parliament that financial and economic challenges that both EDF and Areva are facing would be “time consuming”. The necessary reorganisations “would need long delays before a proper recovery happens” and ASN would prioritise regulatory oversight of the existing fleet rather than any new project.
According to the letter, ASN is concerned that while EDF is dedicating its efforts to new nuclear projects, the financing of safety improvements for the normal operation of the French nuclear fleet could be delayed or even given up.
The letter says “heavy evidence” still needs to be brought prior to further commitments, in order to make those commitments “gain robustness and reliability”.
On 7 June, three French workers unions sent a letter to energy minister Ségolène Royale asking for clarification about the “orientation” of the French nuclear industry.
Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive officer of EDF’s UK subsidiary EDF Energy told MPs last month that he could not give a definite time for when the company will make the FID.
Mr de Rivaz was called to reappear before the committee after indicating at an appearance in March that the FID could be taken by early May. The committee asked him to explain why that had not happened.
The letter is online: http://bit.ly/1Uc8N0F
Nestle’s new deal for powering its UK and Ireland operations with wind energy
NEW RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE FOR NESTLE UK AND IRELAND OPERATIONS LONDON, The Climate Group, 22 June 16 Nestlé has signed a new deal to power around half of its UK and Ireland operations with wind from the Scottish Highlands.
An initial 15 year Power Partnership Agreement with Community Wind Power will see a brand new nine turbine wind farm open up in Dumfries and Galloway in the first half of 2017. It will produce approximately 125GWh of power per annum, meeting around 50% of Nestlés electricity demand in the UK and Ireland – equivalent to 30,000 homes.
Earlier this year, Nestlé UK & Ireland announced that all its grid supplied-electricity would come from renewable sources, in a deal with EDF Energy. This currently accounts for all of Nestlés electricity use in the UK and Ireland.
As a member of RE100, Nestlé is committed to transitioning its electricity use to 100% renewable electricity not just in the UK, but across its global operations. The latest available data shows that in 2015, 8.4% of Nestlés total electricity consumption was being sourced from renewable power. Today’s development is another positive step towards its global goal.
Dame Fiona Kendrick, Chairman & CEO of Nestlé UK & Ireland, said: “This is a newly commissioned wind farm, generating new energy, creating capacity that didn’t previously exist and capable of providing half of our electricity needs. It’s a proud moment for us and means we have reached another key milestone in our efforts to become a sustainable business.”…….http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/new-renewable-power-source-for-nestl-uk-and-ireland-operations/?platform=hootsuite
Call for Britain to have Russia build UK’s new nuclear stations
UK government needs a nuclear plan B, says Tim Yeo, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 19 June 16, “…….. Tim Yeo, a former chair of the energy and climate change committee, said the government should also consider whether the Russian state operator, Rosatom, or the British state could build new atomic plants.
The Hinkley project in Somerset has been hit by a series of delays, with its developer, EDF, recently postponing a final investment decision until September.
Yeo said continuing opposition from EDF unions to spending huge sums of money in Britain and political uncertainty ahead of the French elections next spring could hold up the project further……..
Yeo said the Russian political situation made it harder for the UK government, but Russian nuclear sources have previously said Rosatom would like to talk.
In 2014, a senior Decc officialconfirmed that there had been serious contact between the two sides……
The pro-nuclear campaigner said the total cost of any new reactor to energy billpayers could be reduced if the British government became directly involved, as some City analysts have claimed…….https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/19/uk-government-should-have-a-nuclear-plan-b-tim-yeo-hinkley-point-bradwell-scheme
Radioactive material at popular UK beach near Sizewell nuclear station
NUCLEAR LEAK ALERT Traces of radioactive material found at seaside beauty spot near decommissioned nuclear site Suffolk’s Southwold beach is the second to be hit by contamination in two months, The Sun UK BY CHARLIE PARKER 17th June 2016
The contamination on the idyllic Southwold beach is feared to be linked to the Sizewell A nuclear plant, which is located on coast not far from the popular seaside spot.
The nuclear factory is in the process of being decommissioned at a cost of £1.2 billion after shutting down ten years ago.
The coastal spot is nicknamed Hampstead-on-Sea because of the all the celebrities who flock there for the holidays.
Chris Evans, Dame Judi Dench and Stephen Fry and other big names regularly visit the beach spot.
Alarmingly, Southwold is the second Suffolk beach to be hit by the contamination in just two months.
In April, scientists monitoring the area around Sizewell revealed that a ‘small amount’ of an particularly dangerous and ‘unusual’ radioactive isotope had been found at Aldeburgh, eighteen miles from Southwold.
The Sizewell plant, which houses two outdated magnox nuclear reactors, is on the coast between the two resorts.
The Environment Agency insisted today that there are ‘no safety or environmental concerns and no risk to members of the public’……
Sizewell A is in the midst of its own investigations over the discovery of Strontium-90, produced by nuclear fission, at Aldeburgh beach – one of five coastal areas monitored by the site…….
Sizewell A power station was shut down on 31 December 2006, with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority placing the contracts at a budgeted cost of £1.2 billion.
On 7 January 2007 a contractor working on the decommissioning of the station noticed water leaking on to the floor of the laundry where he was washing his clothes……..
The water was found to be cooling water from the pond that holds the reactor’s spent nuclear fuel which had dropped more than 1 foot (0.30 m) without activating any of the alarms.
It was feared that up to 40,000 gallons (151,500 litres) of radioactive water had leaked from a 15ft (4.6 m) split in a pipe, with some spilling into the North Sea where it could wash along the Suffolk coast.
Had the exposed irradiated fuel had caught fire, it would have resulted in the release of radiation into the air.
Southwold is popular with holidaymakers – the town’s populations is typically less than 2,000 but this figure swells to almost 10,000 in summer………https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1298270/traces-of-radioactive-material-found-at-seaside-beauty-spot-near-decommissioned-nuclear-site/
At UK’s Burghfield nuclear weapons factory – a rolling anti-nuclear blockade
Rolling blockade at Burghfield nuclear weapons factory, Red Pepper, Theo Simon writes from one of the longest continuous blockades of a nuclear weapons base 16 June 2016 When I joined the anti-nuclear blockaders lying with arms in lock-on tubes across a Berkshire lane, none of us imagined how the day would play out. After a leisurely start that caught the waiting cops off guard, we’d arrived at the Burghfield nuclear weapons factory near Reading to kick-off a rolling month of blockades the Trident Ploughshares campaign had planned for June.
After a few hours successfully blocking access to the MOD site, rather than doing what the cops expected and leaving, we consolidated our forces and stayed through the night with our lock-ons extended across the gate. Reinforced with new arrivals, we slept through to a second day, and began the longest continuous blockade of a nuclear weapons base ever, with construction traffic turned back and building-work for the warhead factory set back by a week as a result! And there were only 20 of us.
Back in the day when nuclear warheads were the only form of mass destruction on the horizon, terror of nuclear war with Russia mobilized thousands, and protests at nuclear bases could draw upon hundreds of people. Today a new generation of humanity faces many apparently more imminent threats – so many, played out in so many variations on our screens, we’re understandably confused and numb to the very real peril we are in. The most powerful popular argument against Trident seems to be how much it will cost – not the unspeakable obscenity of preparing for mass murder, or the urgent need for disarmament if we are to avoid extinction this century.
Britain was secretly upgrading Trident nuclear arsenal prior to Parliamentary consent
MoD admits it’s worried about security at Trident nuclear weapons base, Rt.com 9 Jun, 2016 Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons program has suffered a skills shortage for the last 10 years, posing a threat to nuclear safety, a Ministry of Defence (MoD) report says.
The latest annual report from the MoD’s internal watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR), says staff shortages are a “key strategic issue” which requires attention to ensure continued “safe delivery” of the nuclear weapons program…….
On Tuesday, it was revealed by the Nuclear Information Service that Britain was secretly upgrading its arsenal of Trident nuclear weapons and developing an entirely new warhead.
Controversially, parliament is yet to consent to its renewal. https://www.rt.com/uk/345975-trident-nuclear-security-concern/
Fleet of little nuclear reactors for Britain. Rolls Royce to build them?
Rolls Royce Shortlisted to build fleet of baby nuclear-reactors, CITY AM Jessica Morris, 5 June 16 , FTSE 100-listed engineering company Rolls-Royce has been shortlisted to build a fleet of mini nuclear reactors, City A.M. understands.It’s part of the government’s £250m nuclear research programme unveiled in last year’s Autumn Statement, which includes a competition to identify the best value small modular reactor (SMR) design for the UK.
An industry source said that the SMR scheme won’t be a “short process”. This comes despite the UK energy policy crisis, with an increasingly strained power supply. Almost 6,000 MW could be lost this year.
Of the 38 companies which submitted expressions of interest in the competition, 33 were eligible to compete in the next round, according to the Sunday Timeswhich first reported the news.
These also include US engineering giant Bechtel, NuScale Power which is backed by US engineer Fluor, and Canada’s Terrestrial Energy……The company declined to comment, while the Department for Energy and Climate Change hasn’t yet responded to a request for comment. http://www.cityam.com/242623/rolls-royce-shortlisted-to-build-fleet-of-baby-nuclear-reactors
NUCLEAR safety experts are calling for households in the UK to be supplied with anti-radiation pills
nuclear materials transported by road, rail, sea and air are also potential targets.
Fears of nuclear terror attack grow amid call for UK homes to be sent anti-
radiation pills NUCLEAR safety experts are calling for households in the UK to be supplied with anti-radiation pills as fears grow of the potential for terrorists to strike highly-sensitive sites around the country. Express, By TOM BATCHELOR May 31 A new report warns British nuclear plants are at risk of mass drone strikes, sophisticated cyber attacks and terrorist infiltrators.
Analysis for the Nuclear-Free Local Authorities (NFLA) found nuclear facilities at Faslane – where the UK stations its Trident missile system – was vulnerable to attack. Sensitive nuclear sites at Hunterston, Torness and Dounreay are also at risk, the study claims. More worrying still, UK authorities were deemed to be underestimating the risk of devastating terrorist attacks.
The report demands urgent action from ministers as it warns governments and regulatory agencies are struggling to keep up with evolving threats. Such is the fear of an attack that the NFLA is demanding anti-radiation pills be distributed to households in Glasgow, Edinburgh and surrounding areas.
The medication is a preventative measure which would help protect people from a radiation leak – either accidental or a deliberate attack.
The report on nuclear security, compiled by Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow with the US Institute for Resource and Security Studies, argues that nuclear materials transported by road, rail, sea and air are also potential targets. He said: “The main consequences would be, whatever the level of attack, mass public panic and sensationalist media reportage. “We would inevitably see total road gridlock, as everyone tries to flee by car en masse at once.”
Drones could carry shaped charges, poison gas, booby traps or decoys, and could come individually or in large groups. The report said: “One heavily laden small drone could probably travel at least 20mph with a load of 5-10kg. “Just one 5kg shaped charge can penetrate 0.75 metres of reinforced concrete, or 0.25 meters of steel.”
The second report for NFLA, written by Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent radiation scientist, focuses on the stable iodine tablets that can prevent radiation poisoning after some nuclear accidents.
Several other European countries distribute the pills across a wide area, but in Scotland they are only given to residents who live within two or three kilometres of nuclear plants……..
EDF Energy, the French company that runs nuclear power stations in Scotland, and the Ministry of Defence, which runs the Faslane nuclear base, declined to comment. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/675515/Nuclear-terror-attack-fears-experts-call-government-hand-out-anti-radiation-pills
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (91)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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
nuclear-news 