Hitachi- from the country that brought the world Fukushima

Hitachi- from the country that brought the world Fukushima
We feel very sad for the people of Japan who want to end nuclear energy whilst a potential new government and big business are desperate for it

No Fukushima at Oldbury

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!
オールド全く福島ません

Thursday 28 April 2011

Oil Leak at Oldbury........EA warns NDA


Oldbury power station warned over River Severn oil leak

Oldbury power stationThe oil leaked into the River Severn

Related Stories

A warning has been issued to Oldbury power station after oil used for cooling leaked into the River Severn.
Managers at the plant near Bristol said the leak on 6 and 7 February had "no measurable environmental impact".
But the Environment Agency said the discharge contravened regulations by "causing polluting matter to enter the Severn estuary".
"The leak was detected by our automatic alarm systems and promptly stopped," a statement from operators Magnox said.
The Environment Agency said it expected "high standards of environmental protection from nuclear operators".
"A warning letter is our lowest formal response to a non-compliance. Improvement actions will be followed up as a part of routine regulation," it said.
"Oldbury has proposed a number of measures that should help mitigate the chances of a further discharge."

Tuesday 26 April 2011

Reg's RWE Speech in German


Guten Morgen! oder Bore Da wie man auf Walisisch sagt.

Mein Name ist Reg Illingworth und ich komme aus einem kleinen Dorf in South Gloucestershire in England. Ich vertrete besorgte Bürger und Bürgerinnen aus den Gemeinden Oldbury und Wylfa, zwei Ortschaften wo RWE und E.ON den Bau von neuen Atomkraftwerken planen. RWE und E.ON wollen hier bis zu sechs Atomreaktoren errichten und haben dazu ein Joint Venture namens „Horizon Nuclear Power“ gegründet.

Die Bürger von Oldbury und Wylfa sind gastfreundliche und gutherzige Menschen. Wir werden nun aber mit einer Entwicklung konfrontiert zu der wir weder befragt noch gehört wurden. Oldbury und Wylfa sind zwei von acht Gemeinden in Großbritannien, die von unserer Regierung als „geeignete“ Standorte für neue Atomkraftwerke auserkoren wurden. Man rechnete bei uns mit wenig Widerstand, da an diesen Standorten bereits Atomkraftwerke im betrieb sind.

In Wylfa und Oldbury stehen gefährliche Magnox Reaktoren, die schon vor Jahren hätten stillgelegt werden müssen. Oldbury ist gar das älteste noch genutzte Atomkraftwerk weltweit, trotzdem hat die Britische Atomaufsicht erst kürzlich wieder seine Laufzeit verlängert. Dabei ereignen sich hier immer wieder besorgniserregende Zwischenfälle – so wurden erst kürzlich bei einer unplanmäßigen Abschaltung das Äquivalent von rund 365.000 Kesselladungen Dampf an die Umwelt abgegeben.

Da ich selbst aus Oldbury bin, möchte ich die Situation hier etwas genauer schildern. Es gibt vor Ort keine Unterstützung für die Neubaupläne von RWE and E.ON. Die örtlichen Kirchen, der Gemeinderat, der Gemeindedirektor und unser lokaler Parlamentsabgeordneter haben sich alle gegen einen Bau neuer Reaktoren ausgesprochen. Wir wollen Ihre Atomreaktoren nicht!

Ich möchte Ihnen einige der Gründe nennen:

  1. Der geplante AKW Standort in Oldbury ist als Flutgebiet der Zone 3, d.h. mit der höchsten Flutgefahr, klassifiziert. Bisher waren hier deshalb selbst kleine Wohnbebauungen untersagt. Dieser Abschnitt der englischen Küste wurde 1607 von einer Riesenwelle, einem Tsunami heimgesucht und über 2.000 Menschen ertranken. Es dürfte schwierig und teuer sein, Ihr Vorhaben gegen eine solche Naturkatastrophe zu schützen.

  1. Die Pläne sehen vor, dass RWE und E.ON am Standort Oldbury auch hochradioaktiven Abfall lagern. Möglicherweise bis zu 160 Jahren – solange kann es dauern bis in Großbritannien ein Endlager eingerichtet wird. Dieser Müll hat jedoch in einem Flutgebiet nichts zu suchen.

  1. In Großbritannien haben wir bereits leidvolle Erfahrungen mit terroristischen Anschlägen machen müssen. In Oldbury patroullieren nicht ohne Grund schwer bewaffnete Polizisten das Gebiet rund um das bestehende AKW. Denn Atomkraftwerke sind höchst verwundbare Ziele. Fukushima zeigt uns zudem, dass nicht nur das Reaktorgebäude, sondern auch die Kühlsysteme, Notstromversorgung und Becken für abgebrannte Brennstäbe gegen Gefahren abgesichert sein müssen. Ich denke, es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis Osama Bin Laden irgendwann beim Nachmittagstee in den Bergen Pakistans auf die Idee kommt, dass man durch einen Angriff auf ein Atomkraftwerk noch mehr Angst, Schrecken und Zerstörung anrichten kann als durch den Angriff auf das World Trade Center. Herr Grossmann, ich frage Sie: Können Sie einen schweren Unfall in Folge eines terroristischen Angriffs auf die bei uns geplanten Atomanlagen ausschließen?

  1. Wir sind aber auch besorgt wegen der Gesundheitsrisiken im Normalbetrieb. Seit der vom bundesdeutschen Amt für Strahlenschutz herausgegebene Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken weiß man, dass die Leukämierate für Kinder in der Nähe von Atomkraftwerken um 118% erhöht ist. Davor wollen wir unsere Kinder bewahren.

  1. Seit Fukushima muss das Restrisiko der Atomkraft neubewertet werden. Das gilt auch für die in Oldbury und Wylfa geplanten Reaktoren. Oldbury ist nur 20 Kilometer von Bristol, einer der größten Städte Englands, entfernt. Wenn es – Gott bewahre – hier einen schweren Unfall gäbe, müssten über eine Millionen Menschen evakuiert werden und unser Leben und unsere Wirtschaft würden einen beträchtlichen Schaden erleiden. Ist RWE in der Lage für solche Schäden aufzukommen? Ich denke nicht.

  1. Der Standort in Oldbury befindet sich an einer Flussmündung mit schwachem Unterboden. Der Zugang zum Gelände ist schwierig, da die Straßeninfrastruktur auf der Landseite spärlich und Zugang auf der Flussseite durch die Tiden stark beschränkt ist . Unseres Wissens reicht auch die Größe des von Ihnen bisher erworbenen Gelände nicht aus. Ich frage Sie deshalb: Planen RWE und E.ON weitere Landkäufe in Oldbury?

Ich möchte noch ein paar grundsätzliche Dinge zu dem Markt sagen in dem RWE investieren will. Das britische Atomprogramm hat die schlechteste ökonomische Bilanz von allen Atomprogrammen in Industrieländern. Herausragende Beispiele sind die Atomkraftwerke Dungeness B mit einer Bauzeit von 24 Jahren und Sizewell B, dessen Bau 1995 über 3,8 Milliarden kostete und das im Rahmen der Privatisierung verschenkt werden musste, da es keiner erwerben wollte. 1992 mussten britische Steuerzahler gar 12 Milliarden Euro aufbringen, um den Atombetreiber British Energy vor dem Bankrott zu bewahren. Soll das ein lukrativer Markt für RWE sein?

Schauen wir uns doch RWEs eigene Kennziffern für „Return on Capital employed“ an: Die RWE AG als ganzes hat hier 2009 eine Rendite von 16,3 % erzielt. Für RWE Npower in Großbritannien lag dieser Betrag bei nur 4,9%. In Ihrem Bericht für 2009 wurde der Wertbeitrag für „Shareholder Value Added“ in Großbritannien gar mit minus 254 Millionen Euro angegeben.

Wenn RWE und E.ON an ihren Plänen für Oldbury und Wylfa festhalten, riskieren sie viele Milliarden von Euro. Im Gegensatz zu Ihrem Konkurrenten Electricite de France, der 15 Milliarden Euro für den Kauf von British Energy aufgewendet hat, um den Weg für seine Atompläne in Großbritannien zu ebenen, wäre es für RWE und E.ON ein leichtes sich von ihren Atomplänen zu verabschieden.

Investieren Sie nicht in ein Atomgrab sondern stattdessen in kosteneffektive und umweltfreundliche Erneuerbare Projekte. Tun sie es für die Zukunft Ihres Konzerns. Tun Sie es für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen von Westengland und Wales.

Vielen 

Saturday 23 April 2011

Reg's Report from the RWE AGM

Hi Guys

This article is from Reuters and shows a photo from inside the Grugahalle in
Essen at the RWE AGM. I was on the second row at the front , very close to the
lectern, one seat out of this photo.

I arrived at the halle at 8am with Simone from urgewald, a german environmental
group, who were my hosts for the day.

By the time we arrived there were approx. 200 protestors outside chanting for
'abschalten.....close them down'

Heffa Schucking the MD of urgewald had arranged for various press and TV
interviews which I took part in during the day, I did three TV interviews with
WDR 1, apparently the largest publicly owned TV company in Germany.

At 8.30 we progressed into the halle and I picked up my 50 RWE shares and voting
documents.

We then went to register our speeches, Heffa asking for Grossmann to resign and
mine explaining about the plight of Oldbury and Wylfa.....see
www.shepperdineagainstnuclearenergy.blogspot.com for full transcript.

By 10am there was at least 500 protestors outside the halle who were sitting on
route to the entrance. The board announced there would be a delay as still lots
of the 5000 people were outside.

The Grugahalle hold up to 8,700 people, there must have been at least 200 TV
screens, so you could watch and hear the proceedings whilst eating a bratwurst
and pretzel, the dinner rooms were burgeoning with people and media, it took me
half an hour to get a bratwurst!!

After about a 15 minute delay proceedings started with a speech from Grossmann
the CEO of RWE. As soon as he started to speak small pockets of shareholding
protestors against atomkraft became evident.

Throughout the duration of his speech seven small groups of shareholders
requesting 'abschalten' were removed from the halle by pretty bulky security
guards.

It was evident the utter abhorrence that german public now feel for atomkraft.

This type of protest had never occurred before at the RWE AGM.

Following Grossmann's dismal speech and the general feeling from the boards
(Supervisory and Executive) that RWE are doomed...you can,t build an energy
company today on nuclear, lignite and coal and a massive contribution from
renewables of 1.5 per cent.

Then came the turn of the shareholders to speak.

Up first was a representative of Allianz , a big, shareholder, who roundly
condemned the nuclear element of the business, the fourth largest shareholder
wanted the business to change away from nuclear and coal if it is to have a
future, they also questioned the relationship with E.on and the nuclear
involvement in the UK which has to be sorted out by 2015.

Of all the speakers most mentioned Fukushima and nuclear. Very few could take
any positives of RWEs continuing support of atomkraft.

Schucking then made her lucid speech requesting the immediate resignation of
Grossmann which was met with support from around the halle.

Then came my turn with my colleague from urgewald , Simone, after being allowed
to speak two sentences in English, Simone took over and I was left to make eye
contact with as many shareholders around the vast halle.

Following the speech Herr Grossmann addressed three questions I had asked.

They may need more land for the Oldbury development, It is the British
government that wants new nukes and RWE are just trying to help them, The
British government is looking at the terrorism issue and if they are satisfied
then RWE would be happy, They are waiting for the results of the stress tests
and the Weightman report.

Herr Grossmann did offer to meet me privately after the event to discuss my
issues in further detail but unfortunately I had to leave to catch my plane.

It is an offer that I would like to take up in the future.

The next visit to Essen and the Grugahalle will be in early May when E.on have
their AGM, Dr Carl Clowes from the Wylfa campaign will be attending as a member
of the critical shareholders association.

Thanks............we will win this one.......no doubt!

Reg


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Reuters_News@reuters.com" <Reuters_News@reuters.com>
To: "oldburynuclear@btinternet.com" <oldburynuclear@btinternet.com>
Sent: Saturday, 23 April, 2011 10:29:48
Subject: Reuters.com - Human cost of nuclear power too high - German minister


reg illingworth (regillingworth@me.com) has sent you this article.  Personal
Message:    People of the UK cast off your shackles  Reuters.com - Human cost
of nuclear power too high - German minister   
http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE73L1LU20110422  This service is not
intended to encourage spam. The details provided by your colleague have been
used for the sole purpose of facilitating this email communication and have not
been retained by Thomson Reuters. Your personal details have not been added to
any database or mailing list.  If you would like to receive news articles
delivered to your email address, please subscribe at
http://www.reuters.com/newsmails 

Friday 22 April 2011

RWE, Nukes and lignite, Allianz question the path to the future


Hi Everybody,


I attended the RWE AGM meeting in Essen in Germany on Wednesday 20th at the invite of the "critical shareholders association" .

Of the speakers the largest and fourth largest shareholders in RWE-----Representing billions of pounds of investment--- requested that they end their involvement in nuclear energy.

They even went as far as questioning the involvement with E.on in the UK new nuclear market.

My take from the meeting is that nuclear is stone dead forever in Germany and that no German company will ever want to build nuclear anywhere in the world....including UK.

Whether Oldbury and Wylfa are packaged and sold on to another potential investor is doubtful.

Where would the finance and insurance come from?.............certainly not Allianz

We will be at the E.on AGM at Essen in May !

The politicians who read this blog should realise that we now have the support and strategy of significant supporters in Germany who are happy to help.

Good news and thanks

Atomkraft:Nein Danke

Reg

Reg Illingworth speaks at RWE AGM in Essen

Many thanks to Heffa Schucking and Simone Lorrenz of urgewald in Germany for enabling us to present our arguments to Herr Grossman and the rest of the RWE board in Essen on Wednesday.

A big thank you from the UK!



Hello, My name is Reg Illingworth and I am from a small village in South Gloucestershire in England and I am here today representing two concerned campaigning groups, one in England and one in Wales.

We are warm hearted and well intentioned people who through our governments previous dalliance with nuclear starting in the 1960s are now having the prospect of new mega nuclear power plants foisted upon us.

Oldbury and Wylfa are two of eight sites which have been home to nuclear power plants and are seen by our government as, so say, suitable sites!

Central government has made this decision, We have no say in our destiny!

 RWE along with your partners E.on wish to build two new nuclear power stations with two or three reactors at each and have formed a joint venture company called Horizon Nuclear Power

The sites are called Wylfa and Oldbury, both sites are close to existing power plants that have old magnox reactors at present which are due for decommissioning but the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority keeps extending their lives. Oldbury was due to close in 2008.

There have been two incidents in the last four years when ,apparently, problems with the electric generating side of the plant has caused the reactors to shut down emitting 365,000 kettles full of steam into the atmosphere.

The latest of these was post Fukushima!

These reactors have lived their life and are becoming increasingly dangerous!

Wylfa has been chosen as the first site to be developed with it opening by 2020 with planning starting at Oldbury in 2014, construction would start in 2020 with an optimistic and probably unrealistic completion date being in 2025.

My knowledge is greatest about Oldbury so the specifics I talk about will be connected to that site., then I will remind you of the poor history of nuclear build in the UK and finally RWE’s poor returns in the UK market which , in my opinion, will be negatively affected by its urge to enter the nuclear new build market.

Decisions about new nuclear build in the UK are made by central government, The Department for Energy and Climate Change controls The Office for Nuclear Development.

 There is very little support in the locality for the Oldbury development. The Parish Councils, The local government council, the local government executive , our local MP and liberal  democrat government minister, Steve Webb, are all against the current plans as laid out by Horizon.

Horizon are finding it very difficult to garner any support without offering monies to local groups to get them on side.

A. Local Issues

The main issues we have about the new nuclear development  at Oldbury are as follows:-



1.Flood Risks

The Oldbury site is in a Zone 3 flooding area. The highest possible. Local planners would not allow anybody to build a small residential dwelling there.

 In 1607 a storm surge/tsunami hit this part of the English coastline causing untold damage and the death of 2000 people.

Given the recent events in Fukushima and the history of storm surge at the Oldbury site, it will prove extremely difficult to protect all the plant and pumps adequately given such an event in the future

2. Terrorism

Britain is a target for terrorist attacks and the nuclear power plants are vulnerable. At Oldbury we have a team of 24 heavily armed police officers patrolling a 5 km radius from the existing power plant.

After the sad events in Fukushima we can now see that it is not only the reactor that needs to be bomb or missile proof but also the other infrastructure such as the cooling towers, cooling pumps, fissile materials in cooling ponds, storage of high grade waste on site.

If I was Osama Bin Laden sat drinking tea in the mountains of Pakistan I would be realizing that the nuclear power plants are soft targets with the potential to cause the equivalent of 10,000 World Trade Centre attacks in one hit.

The cost of all of this additional security and enhanced construction techniques will be borne by RWE and its partner E.on.

The build specifications will have to be re-evaluated following Fukushima, I can assure you the construction costs will be more not less!

3. Health Risks.

As locals we are concerned about the nuclear industry and increased incidence of leukemia’s and cancers in the vicinity of nuclear establishments. We are aware of a study carried out in Germany called KiKK which found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia’s and cancer in the vicinity of all nuclear establishments here.

Our government continues to ignore any suggestions that the nuclear industry damages peoples health!

4.Demographics.

Bristol City Centre, the eighth largest city in England is within 20 kilometers of the Oldbury site. 1,000,000 people live within the Bristol conurbation.

If , God forbid, an incident occurred similar to the Fukushima accident a considerable part of the West of England and South Wales would need to be evacuated which would significantly affect the economy of the UK.

Imagine the damage that this would cause to your RWE brand throughout the world, witness TEPCO at Fukushima

5. Nuclear Waste

RWE and E.on will be responsible for the storage of high grade nuclear waste on the Oldbury site for the length of the plants operation and for up to 160 years until an adequate technique and site is found to transfer it to.

Please understand your responsibilities to the British people.

6.Cooling

With the site being estuarine  there will be a requirement for cooling towers . Given the size of the potential reactors, if and when the Areva or  Westinghouse reactors are approved by the British governments Health and Safety Executive, there will have to be three or four massive cooling towers up to 200m high.

This must be added to the construction costs of the development

7.Access and the Oldbury Site

The site at Oldbury is very difficult to access. There is a poor road infrastructure coming into the existing nuclear power plant from the land side.

The water side access will be via the River Severn which has amongst the highest tidal range in the world. Access for any ships or boats will only be for limited periods during the day.

The site is on an estuary with the ground being made of alluvium and mercia mudstone. It is very weak and will need a lot of support

We would also like to know how much additional land you will need to acquire before the development could commence. We believe that you will need at least 260 hectares of land but to date you only own 140 hectares?



B.The poor history of nuclear build in the UK

Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy and Director of Research at Greenwich University in the UK informs that on economic issues the UK has the worst record of any developed country in executing its nuclear power programme.

Examples include Dungeness B being the least reliable with 46% lifetime availability, Dungeness B took 24 years from construction start to commercial operation, Sizewell B cost more than 3.8 billion euros in 1995 and had to be given away to privatize it, in 1992 British Energy went bankrupt and was saved by taxpayers to the tune of 12billion euros, nuclear decommissioning is leaving British taxpayers with a legacy of about 115billion euros.

How are RWE and E.on going to improve on this history? What plans have you in place?

I ask does RWE AG want to be involved with this market?



C. RWE performance in the UK Market.


After looking at recent sets of RWE AG accounts we can see that the return of capital employed for the RWE Npower business in the UK in 2009 was 4.9 per cent relative to an overall performance by the RWE AG group of 16.3 per cent.

 The market in the UK since 2002 has been difficult for RWE.

In fact in 2009 the UK Werbeitrag “Shareholder Valued Added” was minus 254 million euros.

If RWE now decide to proceed to gamble on a hazardous project such as new nuclear in the UK this could have serious effects on the value of the whole of RWE AG group.

This is not horse racing, this is business!

D.Conclusion

As I am here representing a shareholder of RWE I urge the Supervisory Board and the Main Board of the RWE AG group to reconsider the joint venture with E.on , Horizon Nuclear Power, and to avoid making a very costly mistake in new nuclear in the UK.

If Horizon continues with its plans to build reactors at Oldbury and Wylfa, it will be placing tens of billions of Euros of its shareholders’ money at risk. Unlike EDF, which spent 15billion euro buying British Energy to back its nuclear intentions, the Horizon consortium has spent very little compared to the cost of building a nuclear reactor and it could easily abandon its UK nuclear plans with little cost to its shareholders.

 Instead, it should pursue much more cost-effective and low-risk options, tapping the vast potential of renewables in the UK.

Thank you for listening to us from the Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy (SANE) of South Gloucestershire in England and Anglesey in Wales .













German Report of RWE AGM in Essen


19. April 2011, 17:26

urgewald und Kritische Aktionäre fordern Rücktritt von RWE-Chef Großmann

Sassenberg (urgewald e.V./Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionäre) 19.04.2011: Die Umweltorganisation urgewald und der Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionäre fordern die RWE AG bei der morgigen Hauptversammlung in Essen auf, sich von ihrer verantwortungslosen Atompolitik zu verabschieden, die Klage gegen das Atom-Moratorium zurückzuziehen und den Vorstandsvorsitzenden Großmann zu entlassen.

Während sich zwischen den politischen Parteien ein Kompromiss für einen schnelleren Ausstieg aus der Atomenergienutzung abzeichnet, kämpft RWE verbissen für die Kernenergie. “Die Katastrophe in Fukushima führt der Welt die Unbeherrschbarkeit der Atomenergie vor Augen", erklärt Heffa Schücking, Geschäftsführerin von urgewald. “Vorstandschef Jürgen Großmann hat bis letztes Jahr immer wieder behauptet, Japan zeige, dass man sichere AKW auch in erdbebengefährdeten Regionen bauen könne. Zum Glück machten Proteste und mangelnde Finanzierung einen Strich durch Herrn Grossmanns abenteuerliche Pläne, AKW an erdbebengefährdeten Standorten in Bulgarien und Rumänien zu errichten."

“Als einziger Energiekonzern hat RWE Klage gegen die vorläufige Abschaltung eines Atomkraftwerks eingelegt und stellt sich damit gesellschaftlich ins Abseits," sagt Markus Dufner, Geschäftsführer des Dachverbands Kritischer Aktionäre. “Viele Kleinanleger sind gegen die RWE-Klage und immer mehr Städte und Gemeinden, die dem Verband der kommunalen RWE-Aktionäre (VKA) angehören, fordern den Atomausstieg."

Im Ausland will RWE nach wie vor neue Atomkraftwerke bauen, so in Großbritannien, wo RWE und E.ON gemeinsam sechs Atomreaktoren in Oldbury und Wylfa planen. Reg Illingworth von der Bürgerinitiative in Oldbury ist extra für die Hauptversammlung angereist, um dagegen zu protestieren: “RWE weigert sich, der Realität des Restrisikos ins Auge zu sehen. Dass es innerhalb von 32 Jahren in drei Atomkraftwerken zu Kernschmelzen gekommen ist, zeigt, dass die Grundannahmen der Atomindustrie hinsichtlich der Häufigkeit solcher Ereignisse falsch und unverantwortlich sind. Die Bürger von Oldbury und Wylfa wollen nicht die Leidtragenden sein."

RWEs aggressive Atom- wie auch Kohlepolitik, die besonders mit Vorstandschef Großmann verbunden ist, blockiert die Energiewende. Aus Sicht von urgewald und der Kritischen Aktionäre gefährdet dies nicht nur die Sicherheit und das Klima, sondern setzt auch den langfristigen Wert des Unternehmens aufs Spiel. “Im Jahresbericht erklärt RWE selbst, dass die Investoren dem Unternehmen Geld anvertraut haben und es die Aufgabe RWEs sei, damit verantwortungsvoll zu wirtschaften", so Schücking. “Die aktuelle Konzernpolitik tut dies nicht. Deshalb sollte RWE dem Motto seines Geschäftsberichts folgen und Klartext reden. Und zwar mit Jürgen Großmann: Er muss entweder seinen Atomkurs ändern oder sich einen neuen Job suchen, da er RWE mehr schadet als nutzt," fordern Dufner und Schücking.
www.urgewald.de
dachverband(at)kritischeaktionaere.de

Thursday 21 April 2011

Press Release from urgewald about RWE AGM in Essen

Reg Illingworth yesterday attended the the RWE AGM in Essen and was allowed to speak for seven minutes to the Supervisory and Executive Board of RWE AG.

urgewald and its MD , Heffa Schucking , arranged for this opportunity.

www.urgewald.de



urgewald and Critical shareholders demand resignation of RWE CEO Grossmann

The environmental organization urgewald and the Association of Critical Shareholders urge the RWE AG in tomorrow's general meeting in Essen, say goodbye to their irresponsible nuclear policy to withdraw the case against the nuclear moratorium and to dismiss the CEO Grossman.
While emerging between the political parties, a compromise for a faster phase-out of nuclear energy, RWE fighting doggedly for nuclear energy. "The disaster in Fukushima to the world the uncontrollability of nuclear energy is a reminder," said Heffa Schücking, managing director of urgewald. "Chief executive Juergen Grossmann added to last year's often said Japan shows that one can build safe nuclear power plant in earthquake-prone regions. Fortunately, making protests and lack of funding to build a line by Mr. Grossman's adventurous plans, nuclear power plant in earthquake-prone locations in Bulgaria and Romania. "

"As the only energy company RWE has brought against the temporary shutdown of a nuclear power plant is inserted and is thus socially marginalized," says Markus Dufner, Director of the Federation of Critical shareholders. "Many retail investors are opposed to the RWE-action and more and more cities and municipalities that the Association of Local RWE shareholders (MCA) members calling for the nuclear phase. "

Abroad, RWE will build new nuclear power still works, we plan in the UK, where RWE and E. ON jointly six nuclear reactors at Oldbury and Wylfa. Reg Illingworth of the citizens' initiative in Oldbury is flown in for the meeting to protest against it: "RWE refuses to see the reality of the residual risk in the eye. That it is within 32 years came in three nuclear power plants to nuclear fusion, shows that the basic assumptions of the nuclear industry in the frequency of such events are false and irresponsible. The citizens of Oldbury and Wylfa will not suffer. "

RWEs aggressive nuclear policy, as well as coal, which is particularly associated with CEO Grossman blocked, the energy transition. From the perspective of urgewald and Critical Shareholders will jeopardize not only the safety and the environment, but also sets the long-term value of the company at risk. "The annual report RWE itself states that the investors the company have entrusted money and the task RWEs had to to do business responsibly," said Schücking. "The current group policy does not do this. Therefore, RWE follow the theme of its annual report and plain talk . And indeed with Juergen Grossmann: He must either change its nuclear course or find a new job because he RWE more harm than good, "Ford Dufner and Schücking.

Counterclaim: www.kritischeaktionaere.de
Interviews in advance or on 20 April from 8:15 clock in front of the Grugahalle in Essen
Contact and further information: urgewald, Heffa Schücking, 0160-96 76 14 36 heffa@urgewald.de, www.urgewald.de
Association of Critical Shareholders, Markus Dufner, Managing Director
Tel 0221 / 599 56 47, mobile 0173-713 52 37,
dachverband@kritischeaktionaere.de, www.kritischeaktionaere.de 

Wednesday 20 April 2011

Reg reporting from RWE AGM in Essen

Hi y'all, the fourth largest shareholder of RWE has just confirmed they want RWE out of nucleAr and a massive question mArk over the e.on deal in UK

Tuesday 19 April 2011

Reg is in Essen

It is reported that Reg Illingworth is in Essen today, nobody seems to know why, I suppose time will tell.

Reg will be reporting live from Essen tomorrow.

Sunday 17 April 2011

John Busby's submission to Mike Weightman

>From: John Busby

Subject: Fukushima

I have put my submission to Mike Weightman on the web

See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/fukushima.htm

My articles on nuclear subjects are marked with an asterisk on

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/articles.htm

The submission follows:-
 

The Areva EPR, the Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000 PWR and Fukushima

The Fukushima incident

Although there are some features of the BWR that contributed to the current problems at Fukushima, the fundamental problem was the automatic tripping of the four operating reactors on detection of the earthquake and the shutdown condition of the other two reactors, which together with the presumed loss of a grid connection, meant that the sole means of control and residual core fission and heat removal was the standby diesel generator system.

Assuming that the control rods were fully lifted – they come up from under the reactor in the case of the BWR - and had there been a means of residual heat removal there might have been no severe consequences of the earthquake and tsunami. Under normal circumstances there would have been no need for the standby generators as there would always have been one at least operating reactor able to maintain supplies to others shutdown and to maintain a filtered, cooled circulation of the spent fuel ponds. There may have been only one standby generation system for the entire complex.

The loss of station power and of the standby diesel generation backup, not just for an emergency shutdown, but also during a routine fuel change must therefore be a concern for the UK new build. But the release of hydrogen and the consequent explosions when venting the reactor vessels because of a rising and dangerous build up of pressure is the main concern. 
Consideration of the consequences of the incident at Fukushima in respect of the designs of the EPR and the AP1000, the sole candidate reactors currently under HSE/NII-EA GDA assessment, follows.

Areva EPR

In the case of the EPR there are two separate diesel generator facilities, sited at opposite sides of the reactor.
The EPR is provided with four standby diesel generators systems, so that in the event of a reactor trip coinciding with a loss of external power, provided to least one system operates, the normal shutdown procedure can be maintained. There are also two additional generators to deal with a station black-out.
There is a comprehensive Safety Injection/Residual Heat Removal system with four  independent “trains” deploying pumps, accumulators and heat exchangers to deal with a range of coolant problems.
The following statement appears in the process description:-
“A dedicated set of valves for depressurising the primary circuit is installed on the pressuriser, in addition to the usual relief and safety valves, to prevent the risk of a high pressure core melt accident”
The depressurising of the coolant circuit needs to keep in step with a reduction in the saturation temperature in order to avoid the coolant flashing to steam, reducing the heat transfer and raising the can cladding temperature and leading to the ion exchange between the zirconium and the steam and the production of hydrogen.
It is not clear in what circumstances the depressurising valves would come into operation. It may be that the safety injection system pressure is unable to match the decaying pressure in the cooling circuit in circumstances where there is a small but significant loss of coolant and the depressurisation is activated. This activation could develop unnecessarily into a similar situation to that which at Fukushima led to a hydrogen explosion.  
The EPR has a "passive" emergency system, which is quite different to the AP1000 as it is devised to cool a melted core in the corium "catcher" assuming melt avoidance methods have failed   
The containment is designed to take a hydrogen deflagration pressure of 5.5 bar. The system arranges to spray the containment internally. There are also hydrogen "recombiners" in the containment to keep its concentration below 10%. (Explosive limits by volume are 18.3% to 59%) 
 
The route of a release from the reactor vessel pressure relief valve is not shown and the valve may vent into the containment. It would be advisable to vent the release externally as it could contain hydrogen. At Fukushima the overpressure was vented into the building and considerable damage to the building and the spent fuel ponds was caused. 
The design philosophy therefore seems to be in need of scrutiny. Rather than preventing a core melt, it could cause it.

AP1000

The key reference document is the AP1000 Plant Description.
Westinghouse claims that the automatic AP1000 passive core cooling system (PCCS) operation needs no standby generation. There are standby generators, but not provided with the same redundancy as normally assumed to be necessary.
From the Westinghouse Plant Description:-
“Off-site power has no safety-related function due to the passive safety features incorporated in the AP1000 design. Therefore, redundant off-site power supplies are not required. The design provides a reliable offsite power system that minimises challenges to the passive safety system.”

The APEX-1000 test facility

As part of the AP1000 pressurised water reactor design certification program, a series of integral systems tests of the nuclear steam supply system was performed at the APEX-1000 test facility at Oregon State University. The APEX-1000 facility is a 1/4-scale pressure and 1/4-scale height simulation of the AP1000 nuclear steam supply system and passive safety features.
The heat in the core was represented by an electrical heater, but otherwise the plant items were similar and appropriately sized to the smaller scale.
The operation of the passive core cooling system following a loss of coolant is described in the APEX test facility report as follows:-
“The break opens at time zero, and the pressuriser pressure begins to fall as mass is lost through the break. The depressurisation rate is largely determined by critical two-phase flow through the break.
When the pressuriser pressure falls below the safety signal set point, a safety systems actuation signal is issued, which causes the reactor to trip. The signal also causes the opening of the core makeup tanks and the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger isolation valves. Once the residual fissions decrease, core power is defined by the decay heat model.
The reactor coolant pumps trip after a short delay, and the rapid coast down expected from the AP1000 canned motor reactor coolant pumps is simulated.
After the pumps coast down, the primary reactor coolant system is cooled by natural circulation, with energy removed from the primary system by heat up of the steam generators, recirculation flow to the core makeup tanks, and fluid loss through the break. Stored energy from the metal in the primary system is transferred to the coolant.
The liquid in the upper plenum and upper head may flash, and as the primary system pressure continues to fall, the upper head will begin to drain.”
The initial leak is described as "critical two-phase flow" which is presumably a mixture of water and steam. Once the reactor trips, i.e., the control rods drop, there will be some residual heat that needs to be removed. (In the actual AP1000 there will also be residual fission and residual heat.) The reactor coolant pumps trip after a short delay and then "coast down", presumably powered by the flywheel energy. The energy is removed from the primary system by heat up of the steam generators by natural circulation.
The APEX test facility report then assumes that liquid in the reactor vessel upper plenum and upper head may flash, in which it assumes that the flash steam appears on the surface of the water. This is incorrect. As the pressure of hot water under pressure falls, bubbles of steam will appear throughout the water. This phenomenon is confirmed by the release of the "two-phase flow".
This means that at the surface of the cans the heat transfer rate will rapidly deteriorate and the surface temperature will rise. It is this phenomenon that splits the steam into hydrogen and water by ion exchange of oxygen from the water to the zirconium cans.
Zirconium
See Wikipedia:-.
“Zirconium ... reacts with steam at high temperature. Oxidation by water is accompanied by release of hydrogen gas. This oxidation is accelerated at high temperatures, e.g. inside a reactor core if the fuel assemblies are no longer completely covered by liquid water and insufficiently cooled. Metallic zirconium is then oxidized by the protons of water to form hydrogen gas according to the following redox reaction: Zr + 2 H2O = ZrO2 + 2 H2” 
There does not appear to be any monitoring of the heater surface temperatures in the APEX test facility simulation and the report does not state when the power to the heater is switched off. It may be that the electric heater does not adequately simulate the residual fission and heat in a reactor core after the control rods have been applied and the heater elements may well have been clad in Inconel and not in zirconium.
Normal re-fuelling shutdown
In a normal shut down the coolant pumps and steam generators take off the first tranche of heat as steam which is passed to the turbine bypass condenser, followed then by the residual heat removal cooling circuits. The residual heat removal system is not brought into operation until the temperature has dropped to 180°C and the reactor vessel pressure to 3 Mpa. This is well below the saturation temperature of 234°C, so that there is no potential for flash steam production in the coolant circuit. 
The turbine bypass can then be closed and the reactor coolant pumps progressively stopped from running. It then takes up to 24 hours for the residual heat removal system to reduce the water temperature to 60°C. During this shutdown process it is essential to maintain the reactor vessel pressure above that corresponding to the saturation temperature to avoid the production of flash steam and the consequent production of hydrogen. For a normal shut down, standby power of at least 25 MW is required. The four coolant pumps each take 6000 kW. 
The AP1000 Passive Core Cooling System (PCCS)
For an animated diagram of the PCCS see:-
See http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.html
Westinghouse claims that the AP1000 passive core cooling system will maintain core cooling and containment integrity for an indefinite period of time following design basis events assuming the most limiting single failure, no operator action and no onsite and offsite ac power sources.”
The plant description does not specifically state that the PCCS is powered by the dc batteries, but “no … ac power sources” infers a resort to dc sources. There could be some functions that could be operated by exigent pressures and temperatures, but not, for example, explosive squib valves. The control of the PCCS was assumed to be a programmable logic controller with an inverted uninterruptible ac supply from the batteries or dc also from the batteries, which appear in the plant description.
However, Westinghouse UK (by email) denied that any power supply, ac or dc, is necessary for the PCCS operation as follows:-
“For an event involving a complete loss of ac power without a LOCA such as what occurred at Fukushima, dc power is not required for operation of the AP1000 PCCS.  There are three flow paths from the PCCS water storage tank to provide cooling of the containment in the event of an accident.  Two flow paths are isolated by air operated  valves and one flow path is isolated by a motor operated valve. On a loss of all ac power, the air operated valves fail open and PCCS cooling is initiated.  The batteries provide the power to open the redundant flow path isolated by the motor operated valve; however, one flow path is sufficient to provide cooling.  … also note for response to abnormal or accident conditions, the AP1000 does not rely on operation of either the (turbine bypass) condensers or main feedwater pumps.”.
It appears from the plant description, that in an event causing a reactor trip coinciding with a loss of external power, as happened at Fukushima, the standby power would be insufficient to power a normal shutdown and the PCCS would be applied. However, the AP1000 control rod mechanisms are designed to drop the rods by gravity with a loss of power. (This offers an advantage over the GE ESBWR, which requires an hydraulic “scram” system to lift the rods from under the reactor vessel in a claimed 1.1 seconds.)
The report of the APEX simulation includes a dimensionless plot of a “AP1000 Typical SBLOCA Pressure Transient” (SBLOCA = small break loss of coolant accident).
This shows (self-evidentially) that before the gravity or compressed gas water injection can enter the reactor vessel or coolant circuit the initial pressure has to be relieved to a third or so of its former working pressure. This means that the contents of the circuit will flash to a mixture of water and steam. Whether or not the reactor has tripped, as showed at Fukushima, the fission or residual fission heat and the concomitant poor heat transfer means that the zirconium can surface temperature will rapidly rise and produce hydrogen from the steam. This means that the “two-phase flow” venting from the “small break” will carry hydrogen and if it is above its auto-ignition temperature it will explode.
The PCCS therefore is of little use for a “small break” and it would be better to ensure that the reactor trips and its residual heat be reduced by allowing the pressure in the circuit to be relieved through the “small break”, which may allow the reduction in pressure to match the equivalent saturation temperature and avoid too much flash steam arising. It would also be advisable that sufficient standby power was made available to operate the turbine bypass condenser and its coolant as there may still be sufficient pressure and temperature in the vessel to make use of the steam generators and the “coasting down” coolant pumps.
In the event of a “large break” at full reactor power the PCCS may be of use, because the pressure in the coolant circuit would have reduced drastically, the core will be beginning to melt and the gravity and pressure injection essential.
It may well be that had the standby generators been operable at Fukushima and the control rods properly tripped, there would have been little consequences resulting from the earthquake. So post-Fukushima, the lack of full AP1000 standby generation appears to be a mistaken design philosophy. The application of the PCCS when there is no leak is inadvisable, as if there was sufficient standby power to effect a normal shutdown procedure, it would create an incident and possible hydrogen explosion when none would otherwise have occurred.
The light water reactor (LWR)
The PWR and the BWR are both of the generic LWR type and both rely on the maintenance of the coolant pressure to avoid the formation of flash steam and the consequent reduction in the heat transfer from the fuel cans. At the time the UKAEA scientists considered that the security of the LWR containment could not be guaranteed. It was this aspect that led to the adoption of the advanced-gas cooled reactor (AGR) in the UK, which it was considered could cope with a loss of coolant better, because the heat transfer rate is intrinsically lower from metal to gas and the cooling circuit is designed accordingly.
The most likely “small break” would be from a circumferential crack occurring in a control rod penetration as nearly happened with a PWR reactor vessel head at Davis-Besse, Ohio, 2002. (The crack in the penetration was fortunately not circumferential, but allowed boric acid to leak and attack the ferritic shell). If this happened the severed control rod housing would fly off and the violent pressure release could damage neighbouring control rod mechanisms. It could well blast the vessel head cover off and stop some of the rods dropping. It could mean that none or not all the control rods would drop and the core would certainly then melt.
A similar severance of a control rod penetration under a BWR reactor vessel could also be catastrophic as it might prevent rods from lifting.
A “big break” occurrence would mean an instant loss of pressure and an immediate flash steam production and with the concomitant hydrogen production could result in an explosion and core meltdown. In this case, if not damaged by the explosion, the PCCS would offer some remedy as the circuit pressure would be relieved and the gravity and compressed gas water injection would meet little resistance, but the scenario is not described.
Conclusions
To avoid a hydrogen explosion it is necessary in an emergency to follow a normal shutdown procedure as near as possible to avoid the formation of flash steam. This means that in the event of simultaneously losing an external power supply an adequate standby power system is instantaneously required. This cannot be guaranteed.
The Fukushima incident showed that venting before the residual core heat has been reduced causes hydrogen to be produced and it is likely to be above its auto-ignition temperature and explode. Because of the propensity to then lead to a core meltdown, the generic light water reactor should no longer be adopted for the UK’s power generation.. 
It also appears that the AP1000’s passive core cooling system (PCCS) offers no real security to it. The APEX-1000 simulation tests shows a rapid de-pressurisation, which should in all circumstances be avoided.
Spent fuel ponds
The automatic tripping of the four operating reactors by the detection of the earthquake and the shutdown condition of the other two reactors, together with the presumed loss of a grid connection meant that the means of control and residual core heat management was lost by failure of the standby diesel generator system.

Assuming that the control rods were fully lifted, had there been a means of residual heat removal there might have been no severe consequences of the earthquake and tsunami. Under normal circumstances there would have been no need for the standby generators as there would always have been one at least operating reactor able to maintain supplies to others shutdown and to maintain a filtered, cooled circulation of the spent fuel ponds. There may have been only one standby generation system for the entire complex.

The loss of the standby diesel generation must therefore be the principle concern for the UK new build. I note that in the case of the EPR there are two separate diesel generator facilities, sited at opposite sides of the reactor. It is claimed that the AP1000 passive core cooling safety system is independent of ac standby supplies or dc batteries for its operation, but which is taken up as an issue above. But external supplies or standby generators would be needed for the spent fuel pond cooling..

However, what is of concern in regard to any type of reactor associated with the new build is the situation at the end of the claimed operational life of 60 years. Assuming that some of the new build is commissioned in 2020, then 60 years takes the decommissioning to commence in 2080. Thereafter residual heat removal will be needed, but the main problem will be the maintenance of cooling and filtering the contents of the spent fuel ponds for a further 10 to 20 years. Depending on how long it takes for the last spent fuel to be cool enough to be transferred to the dry casks, there could be a need to require an alternative electricity supply or standby generation to be available until the turn of the century in 2100.
The review of the Fukushima event and its consequences for the UK’s new build, should consider carefully the situation in 2080 or before then, because (as is a huge problem in the US) there will be a number of filled or in transition spent fuel ponds requiring a secure electricity supply with no associated nuclear generator. There will also be a need for electricity for cranage for placing the spent fuel in the dry casks. This will also need to be continuity of supply for the Sizewell B spent fuel pond until perhaps 2050.

BP's Statistical Review of 2010 recorded a global peak in "all-oils" production in 2008, while the normal "swing" producer, Saudi Arabia experienced its national peak in 2005, so the availability of diesel fuel in the near future, let alone in 2080, must be a cause of concern. It means that because, as in the case of Fukushima all available normal supplies were lost, the fuelling of the standby generators needs consideration by your good self.
An analysis of the uranium market shows that its supply may not match the demands of the current new build, let alone enable the retiring new build fleets to be replaced in 2080. The diesel stored in tanks on the station sites for the next 80 years or so may be subject to degradation. As it will be very expensive throughout the period, it could be the subject of theft. As coal is anticipated to last but a little longer than oil and natural gas it may even be impossible to maintain a heap of coal and an associated coal-fired generator on the site, nor a suitable biomass alternative.

The situation exigent at the time of the closure of the new build is indeterminable. Ageing may not allow the operation to endure for the claimed 60 years without substantial component renewal, but even if just the 40 years current lifespan is attained, it is still over-optimistic to be able to determine the situation in 2060.

In short the inability to determine the fate of the new build from 2060 to 2080 and beyond is reason enough for the new build to be abandoned. The insecurity of the LWR coolant containment and the potential for a hydrogen explosion and core meltdown adds another more compelling reason for its abandonment.
 John Busby 6 April 2011 (Revised 15 April 2011)


CONNED 25th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster


Description: radiation-symbolCONNED CHERNOBYL 25TH ANNIVERSARY, April 26th, 1986-2011
DRAFT PRESS RELEASE Some of the after-effects which will last for Generations to come
©Conned

C          Cancer – thyroid developed in young people under 14 years old as a consequence of Iodine-131 in the emissions from the explosion. 

H         Health – Deaths calculated range from World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that initially said only 31 people had died among the "liquidators," those approximately 830,000 people who were in charge of extinguishing the fire at the Chernobyl reactor and deactivation and cleanup of the site  to nearer 1 million people (See Yablokov et al).

E          Environment – pines went red; bank voles; barn swallows; birds with smaller brains. Exclusion zones and Evacuation – see References section.
           
R          Radiation Research; Restrictions
Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) was set up in Japan five years after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and provides the advice on radiation risks used today but no CHERF although the accident provided exposures were more similar to those which members of the public might be exposed to (as opposed to bomb).  NB: 20 years after the atomic bombing of Japan, we only knew that leukaemia was a consequence of radiation. 24 years later, we saw the rise in other types of cancer and 45 years later we the saw non-cancer diseases appear.  Restrictions – sheep in North Wales are still under restriction from being sold for food.

N         New build nuclear power stations planned for the UK – what are the chances of a catastrophic accident and are people aware or not if they live in a potential Exclusion Zone in an Emergency?

O         One pound thirty pence is still paid per contaminated sheep in N W Wales as a consequence of Caesium 137 deposited from Chernobyl to cover additional regular monitoring.  330 farms are still affected.

B          Baverstock, Keith and Prof Dilwyn Williams identified the thyroid cancers in young people and had to fight to get the papers published.  Keith was the long-time head of the Department for Radiation and Health at the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Y          Yablokov, Alexey of the Centre for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow was one of the authors of Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, together with Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus.  They examined more than 5,000 published articles and studies, most written in Slavic languages and never before available in English.  They proposed the number of Chernobyl-related deaths to be nearer to 1 million people.

L          Latency – gap between exposure to radioactivity and the development of health effects.  Legacy waste – the accumulated wastes from the current UK nuclear power programme for which there is still no known disposal route.

Communities Opposed to New Nuclear Energy Development (CONNED) brings together groups around eight sites earmarked for possible development – Hinkley Point in Somerset, Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex, Wylfa on Anglesey, Oldbury In Gloucestershire, Heysham in Lancashire, Sellafield in Cumbria and Hartlepool in County Durham

APPENDIX 1:  Scientific questions largely ignored

Many scientific questions arising from the [Chernobyl] disaster "have been largely ignored," according to Keith Baverstock, a former senior World Health Organization (WHO) radiation scientist.

In many ways, the story of the scientific response to Chernobyl reads like an intellectual echo of the disaster itself. Soviet efforts to cover up the disaster prevented immediate collection of basic data, while its failed efforts to relocate people from radioactive areas in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine left 200,000 people still living in the affected areas today. In 1989, its credibility shattered, the Soviet government invited the UN-sponsored International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to review health impacts. Working with inadequate Soviet data, in 1991 the IAEA reported that no health problems could be linked to the disaster. And yet, according to Baverstock of the WHO, in 1990 the IAEA experts knew of twenty cases of rare childhood thyroid illness in Ukraine.
Next came the WHO, backed with $20 million from Japan to gather data and address thyroid disease, blood disease and brain damage in utero. But funds ran out in 1995. An international thyroid project launched by the WHO and the European Union in 1992 had similarly stalled, as did later efforts by other international bodies, including the G7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Baverstock notes that about the only interested party that has never participated in Chernobyl research is the nuclear industry itself.
The latest piece of bad news comes from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which, while charged with monitoring Chernobyl science, appears to be disintegrating. UN funding slashes meant UNSCEAR had to cancel its annual meeting last year, and commission member Lars Eric Holm warns that cuts will "seriously affect" future research. Governments in Japan, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany all currently support worthy short-term studies, mostly focusing on thyroid cancer. But with decades of impacts ahead, and local officials concerned that breast cancer and genetic irregularities are emerging, there remains no concerted long-term research plan. Nor have governments in the directly affected countries helped much. Russia recently declared its radioactive zone "clean," despite high radiation readings in many populated areas. In Belarus, the government's approach is to try to lure people back into the radiation zones with tax breaks. Ukraine is investing in new Russian reactors while ignoring calls for more research.
Last year, UN Undersecretary General Kenzo Oshima expressed the hope that "the international community may be moved to action by a healthy combination of compassion and enlightened self-interest." But nobody has committed any cash in response. At the Bryansk diagnostic center in Russia's radioactive zone, chief geneticist Nikolai Rivkind said recently, "The Chernobyl experience--tragic as it is--should be a goldmine for world science." Standing in a threadbare lab where Internet access is as severely rationed as every other research tool, he added, "We've got maybe two years at most left to get organized. I'm losing hope."

Taken from : “Lessons from Chernobyl”, an article by Paul Webster that appeared inThe Nation” June 8th, 2003




Picture credit:
The Chernobyl nuclear reactor was destroyed by an explosion and fire April 26, 1986. (Photo issued by Soviet authorities)

References:  Ecological effects
Red pines:  http://chornobyl.in.ua/en/red-forest-in-chernobyl-zone.html
As a result of the Chernobyl accident, tens of thousands of hectares of forests have experienced massive radioactive contamination, located in the immediate vicinity of the Chernobyl NPP and stretching approximately two kilometres west of the station. These were mainly single-crop plantings of Scotch pine (Pinus silvestris). Signs of radioactive mutation of conifers are already evident, having absorbed approximately 100 doses. It should be noted that the main radiation fallout on the pines resulting from the Chernobyl accident occurred during the revitalization process of plant growth. In such a period the radiosensitivity of plants increases 1,5 – 3 times as compared to other periods. The crown of fairly dense pines acts as an effective filter, which helped delay the effects of large quantities of radioactive dust and aerosols in the crowns of these trees. Pine needles are typically not dropped for 2-3 years, causing a slow natural cleaning of crowns as compared with hardwood trees. This factor increased the radiation effects on coniferous trees compared to other breeds.
Today,  we see some branches with no needles, while some of it very long, or vice versa, shorter. It is also a generative mutations (morphosis) caused by radiation.

Dynamics of Cytogenetic Injuries in Natural Populations of Bank Vole in the Republic of Belarus
R.I. Goncharova and N.I. Ryabokon

Abstract
The frequencies of different types of mutation as well as radionuclide content in bank vole populations in regions of Belarus with various densities of radiocontamination were studied. There were approximately 12-18 generations of animals over the period 1986-1991. The frequency of chromosome aberrations in bone marrow cells of animals in the most contaminated stations (90 and 1524 kBq.m-2 for 137Cs) remained at a high level during this period. The frequencies of genomic mutations (polyploid cells) gradually rose until 1991. Since the radiation load on vole populations was reduced by 1991, it can be stated that there is higher sensitivity of the hereditary apparatus of somatic cells of subsequent animal generations in comparison with ones prior to the Chernobyl fallout. In other words, there is no genetic adaptation to the mutagenic effect of low level radioisotope radiation for the whole investigation period in natural populations of bank vole.
Radiation Prot Dosimetry (1995) 62 (1-2):

Barn swallows
Twenty years after the infamous catastrophe at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, scientists were cheered by the explosion of wildlife that seemed to be thriving in the 19-mile (30-kilometer) "exclusion zone" around the disaster site.  Healthy-looking deer, boar, lynx, and eagle owls were among the animals found throughout the zone, despite the blast that had showered radioactive material over huge swaths of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.
******
…a new study shows that barn swallows living near Chernobyl, which is in Ukraine, suffer from many more birth defects and abnormalities than would ordinarily be expected.  In addition, the swallows are not living as long and are not breeding as successfully as their distant counterparts.  By studying birds rather than humans, the researchers have been able to separate the physiological effects of the radiation from sociological and psychological ones.
"Birds don't drink, birds don't smoke, and they don't suffer the same kind of stresses as humans" that can cause diseases such as cancers, said study co-author Tim Mousseau, a biology professor at the University of South Carolina and a National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration grantee.
 Reported by Kate Ravilious (National Geographic News is part of the National Geographic Society.)

BBC%20-%20Earth%20News%20-%20Chernobyl%20birds%20are%20small%20brained.htm
Chernobyl birds are small brained By Matt Walker Editor, Earth News, April 2011
Harmful legacy
In April 1986, reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded.  After the accident, traces of radioactive deposits were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere.  An exclusion has since been set up around the site of the accident.  However, scientists have been allowed inside to gauge the impact the radiation has had on the ecology of the region.  Last year Prof Moller and Prof published the results of the largest wildlife census of its kind conducted in Chernobyl - which revealed that mammals are declining in the exclusion zone surrounding the nuclear power plant.

Insect diversity has also fallen, and previously, the same researchers found a way to predict which species there are likely to be most severely damaged by radioactive contamination, by evaluating how often they renew parts of their DNA.  In their latest study, the scientists used mist nets to collect birds from eight woodland sites around Chernobyl, which have seen a decline in the numbers of larger animals and small invertebrates living within.

After controlling for the differences between species, they found that the birds had brains 5% smaller on average compared to birds not exposed to background radiation.  The effect was most pronounced in younger birds, particularly those less than a year old.  That suggests that many bird embryos did not survive at all, due the negative effects of their developing brain.

The findings therefore suggest that people living near the affected zone could still be at risk even though radiation levels have declined.

Anders Møller, from Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, led the team that has been monitoring the barn swallows since 1991 for signs of abnormalities such as deformed beaks, toes, and feathers and unusual coloring.
More than 7,700 birds have been examined, some from Chernobyl and others from control areas including Spain, Italy, and Denmark—far away from the explosion site.  The team's results, published online today in the journal Biology Letters, show that abnormalities are much higher in birds from the Chernobyl population.  For example, more than 13 percent of the Chernobyl birds had partial albinism—tufts of white feathers—compared to levels of around 4 percent in the control birds.

"Abnormal features [like albinism] are extremely rare in nature," Møller said.

The findings support the team's theory that even the low levels of radiation around Chernobyl are enough to cause the higher than average rates of abnormalities and birth defects reported in humans living in the region.  "Based on the bird data, we think there is likely to be a plethora of human ailments associated with the Chernobyl radiation," said Mousseau, who is also carrying out a health study on children living in the Chernobyl region.

Radiation vs. Stress

The team's theory directly contradicts a 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).  The forum had concluded that social stress and the collapse of agriculture after communism was overthrown in 1990 were the most significant causes of poor health in the region.

"We found that there was a lot of anxiety amongst the population," said Burton Bennett, a retired radiation specialist who chaired the Chernobyl Forum.  "In general the doses of radiation that people were exposed to were low—comparable to background levels over the course of ten years or so."

Bennett is unconvinced by Møller and colleague's findings.  "It takes very high levels of radiation to cause abnormalities, and I really doubt that this study can be substantiated," he said.

According to the Chernobyl Forum report, about 6.6 million people were exposed to high doses of radiation and 56 people were directly killed by the disaster.  The report estimated that as many as 5,000 people may die from some form of cancer related to the radiation.

Møller and colleagues think that the health impact could be much worse.

Keith Baverstock, an environmental scientist at the University of Kuopio in Finland and co-author of a 2001 United Nations report on human health around Chernobyl, agrees that the results of the bird study are worrying. 

"It confirms that even relatively low levels of exposure to radioactive fallout can result in genetic effects," he said.

If Møller and colleagues are right, then millions of people living in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia are still at risk.

"With proposals to increase the use of nuclear energy," Baverstock said, "this is a matter that needs urgent attention."

Legacy Waste:
See www.nwaa.org.uk  Issues Register for over 100 issues yet to be solved with regard to the legacy wastes which have accumulated from the current nuclear power station programme and which have not yet been addressed in spite of the UK government desire to build yet more nuclear power stations.
 
Site Meter