Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy

Farmers bullied!

2011-11-20T20:12:00.002Z

http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/106458/anglesey-farmer-refuses-to-sell-land-to-wylfa-b-developers.aspx

Check this article out

Farmers bullied!

2011-11-20T20:12:00.000Z

http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/106458/anglesey-farmer-refuses-to-sell-land-to-wylfa-b-developers.aspx

Check this article out

Horizon up to their horrible tricks again! Farmers Bullied!

2011-11-20T20:01:00.000Z

Horizon employing bully boy tactics by getting compulsory rights from Ofgem to investigate the land of a farmer in wylfa, north Wales even though he and his son do not want to sell their land.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=189&refer=Licensing/Work

Please pass this message on to all you know.

Apparently, this is the first stage before compulsory purchase.

RWE to pull out of nuclear in the UK

2011-10-08T10:48:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/rwe-uk-nuclear-power

This article confirms what SANE and Urgewald knew in April following the RWE Shareholders Conference in Essen in April.

German involvement in nuclear worldwide is dead!

Bring on Gazprom to invest in new nukes in the UK!

We feel insecure buying gas of Russia but I am sure the government will feel quite content about having a Russian compny building and operating new nukes in the UK......

Looks as though we will not be making out trip back to Essen in April unless it is to thank the Boards of RWE for wise decisions to terminate the construction of new nukes.

We thank the German public, investors in RWE and E.on and the government of Angela Merkel for offering the leadership that is not being offered in the UK.....SANE Thanks You!

Get ready for the Shepperdine Renewables Festival next year!!

Best Wishes

Reg

Hinckley Point, Somerset

2011-09-18T23:54:00.000+01:00

Hello all, This update: Preparing for the blockade Camp 1st-3rd Oct Bus from Bristol Bristol City Council & Letter to Chris Huhne We have just two weeks before the big blockade of Hinkley point power station. It is also a few weeks before Edf are allowed to start to trash the site, they may sit on their hands for a while however with economic and political uncertainty about new nuclear as it is... lets keep up the pressure and stop them for good! It is time to sit down with your friends and affinity groups and figure out what you are going to wear/play/do on the day, is it street theatre, singing, painting? We have been chatting about knitting a roadblock/woolen reactor sarcophagus/circle of futility/ squares for Fukushima, (you had to be there) if you want to join in bring some wool and needles with you! At least we'll be nice and warm : ) If you plan to be at the weekend camp; Saturday to Monday, please register here: http://stopnewnuclear.org.uk/register or you wont know where to go, and we wont know to expect you. If you want to take the coach from Bristol on Monday morning, (8.30 am, outside @Bristol £10/£6 waged/unwaged) please let us know as soon as possible so we know how many seats we need. Tickets will be on sale at Booty, 82 Colston St, Bristol from the end of next week. The coach will arrive at the blockade around 10am as part of the second wave of blockaders. We have received a sympathetic response from Bristol city council about the city's evacuation plan. It seems they don't approve of nuclear new build either, however they feel powerless to do anything about it. We think they should become a nuclear free local authority, (NFLA) which would give them the support of a national network and resources to fight on issues like the shipment of nuclear waste through the city. Several councillors approached us and offered to help guide us through the system to get our questions heard and get effective responses. If you are interested in joining a working group to pursue this please contact Ali: alisonfarnon@yahoo.co.uk Whats the evacuation plan? has been echoing around the world as different campaigns seek clarification on the responsibilities and preparedness of the nuclear industry for accidents such as Fukushima. See the attached letter to Chris Huhne, energy secretary. Please personalise and send it to him at: chris.huhne@decc.gsi.gov.uk It was originally written by Pete Rowberry of Suffolk. See you soon SWAN Letter to Chris Huhne: To: Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP, You will see from the attached link that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the United States are insisting that estimated for timescales for evacuation of areas around nuclear power stations need to be provided (see Google news http://www.facebook.com/l/AAQA74uGqAQAAK9fLp8a9BhyWUAb_LunDJ3NdKBfDD4pAAA/www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hENHpCMD39QR7QDoexKzPj39-ZPg?docId=563c0e3bbbc34dda9670f9a160a8ac40) . I live within 6 miles of a nuclear power station, i.e. well within the evacuation zone imposed after Fukushima and significantly closer than the areas polluted by high levels of long lived radioactive caesium following both Chernobyl and Fukushima (see Wall Street Journal http://www.facebook.com/l/oAQBEAHpnAQCZRtzD1EniJ6ziQ01gInT3IYhjMrj7P2tFbA/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904332804576540131142824362.html. If faith in the nuclear industry following Fukushima is to be restored the public need to be reassured that, in the case of a nuclear accident, resilient contingency plans are in place. There is no evidence that such plans for the Sizewell power station in Suffolk have every been tested and there is great doubt whether the proposed evacuation plan is realistic or achievable. There is also doubt about the provision of iodine for young children and uncertainty in the minds of the public about what the evacuation procedures are and where stocks of iodine tablets are held. I believe that the UK should follow the US in insisting that the industry examines these evacuation timescales and commits to achieving them and that these plans should be linked to the provision of iodine, which, after a radiation release can save many young peoples' lives. Does the Department for Energy and Climate Change, who are such strong advocates of nuclear technology, agree that this should be the case and if so how are they going to ensure that the relevant action is taken.

Hinkley starts legal proceedings against government

2011-08-30T20:11:00.002+01:00

To Reg Illingworth,

Stop Hinkley Legal Challenge Appeal

We need your support! With a number of important decisions being made in relation to the Hinkley C plans, Stop Hinkley is considering whether to challenge these in the courts. Greenpeace recently decided to mount a legal challenge to the government’s national policy on nuclear power, which is excellent news, but we also need to be aware of decisions being made locally on preparatory works for Hinkley C, particularly by West Somerset Council.

With this is mind, and to be well prepared, we have decided to invite members and supporters to contribute to a Legal Challenge Fund. Any donation, large or small, will be welcome, and put to good use in fighting Hinkley C. http://www.stophinkley.org/LegChallAppeal.htm

Please send your donations, made payable to “Stop Hinkley”, to:
Stop Hinkley Legal Challenge Fund,
8 The Bartons, Yeabridge, South Petherton TA13 5LW.

Or you can send a donation direct to the Stop Hinkley bank account:
Account name: Stop Hinkley
Account number: 19041903
Sort code: 09-01-52
Please Quote: Legal Challenge

Or you can donate online via PayPal at www.stophinkley.org/LegChallAppeal.htm or log in to PayPal and send payment to admin@stophinkley.org (please quote Legal Challenge)

PLEASE PASS THIS INFO TO ANYONE WHO YOU THINK MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LEGAL CHALLENGE APPEAL.
************************************

Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl

2011-08-29T09:18:00.003+01:00

Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl
Japan has been slow to admit the scale of the meltdown. But now the truth is coming out. David McNeill reports from Soma City

Monday, 29 August 2011SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
AP
Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters.

ENLARGE
SPONSORED LINKS
Ads by Google

Get $75 Free Advertising
Try Google AdWords.
Claim Your $75 Coupon Now!
www.Google.com/AdWords

Medical Waste Autoclaves
Bondtech Autoclave Systems
Commercial or on-site autoclaves
www.bondtechautoclaves.com

/answers Magazine
How can a small island become
energy-independent within a decade?
siemens.com/answers/islandinthewind

AppSumo -Geek Daily Deals
The Fattest Deals for Web Geeks!
Check Out Today's Deal.
AppSumo.com/Web-Deals

Yoshio Ichida is recalling the worst day of his 53 years: 11 March, when the sea swallowed up his home and killed his friends. The Fukushima fisherman was in the bath when the huge quake hit and barely made it to the open sea in his boat in the 40 minutes before the 15-metre tsunami that followed. When he got back to port, his neighbourhood and nearly everything else was gone. "Nobody can remember anything like this," he says.

Now living in a refugee centre in the ruined coastal city of Soma, Mr Ichida has mourned the 100 local fishermen killed in the disaster and is trying to rebuild his life with his colleagues. Every morning, they arrive at the ruined fisheries co-operative building in Soma port and prepare for work. Then they stare out at the irradiated sea, and wait. "Some day we know we'll be allowed to fish again. We all want to believe that."

This nation has recovered from worse natural – and manmade – catastrophes. But it is the triple meltdown and its aftermath at the Fukushima nuclear power plant 40km down the coast from Soma that has elevated Japan into unknown, and unknowable, terrain. Across the northeast, millions of people are living with its consequences and searching for a consensus on a safe radiation level that does not exist. Experts give bewilderingly different assessments of its dangers.

Related articles
Japanese leadership ballot set to split ruling party
Search the news archive for more stories
Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters. One of the most prominent of them is Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and long time anti-nuclear activist who warns of "horrors to come" in Fukushima.

Chris Busby, a professor at the University of Ulster known for his alarmist views, generated controversy during a Japan visit last month when he said the disaster would result in more than 1 million deaths. "Fukushima is still boiling its radionuclides all over Japan," he said. "Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse."

On the other side of the nuclear fence are the industry friendly scientists who insist that the crisis is under control and radiation levels are mostly safe. "I believe the government and Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco, the plant's operator] are doing their best," said Naoto Sekimura, vice-dean of the Graduate School of Engineering at the University of Tokyo. Mr Sekimura initially advised residents near the plant that a radioactive disaster was "unlikely" and that they should stay "calm", an assessment he has since had to reverse.

Slowly, steadily, and often well behind the curve, the government has worsened its prognosis of the disaster. Last Friday, scientists affiliated with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the plant had released 15,000 terabecquerels of cancer-causing Cesium, equivalent to about 168 times the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the event that ushered in the nuclear age. (Professor Busby says the release is at least 72,000 times worse than Hiroshima).

Caught in a blizzard of often conflicting information, many Japanese instinctively grope for the beacons they know. Mr Ichida and his colleagues say they no longer trust the nuclear industry or the officials who assured them the Fukushima plant was safe. But they have faith in government radiation testing and believe they will soon be allowed back to sea.

That's a mistake, say sceptics, who note a consistent pattern of official lying, foot-dragging and concealment. Last week, officials finally admitted something long argued by its critics: that thousands of people with homes near the crippled nuclear plant may not be able to return for a generation or more. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, the government's top government spokesman. "We are very sorry."

Last Friday, hundreds of former residents from Futaba and Okuma, the towns nearest the plant, were allowed to visit their homes – perhaps for the last time – to pick up belongings. Wearing masks and radiation suits, they drove through the 20km contaminated zone around the plant, where hundreds of animals have died and rotted in the sun, to find kitchens and living rooms partly reclaimed by nature. "It's hard to believe we ever lived here," one former resident told NHK.

Several other areas northwest of the plant have become atomic ghost towns after being ordered to evacuate – too late, say many residents, who believe they absorbed dangerous quantities of radiation in the weeks after the accident. "We've no idea when we can come back," says Katsuzo Shoji, who farmed rice and cabbages and kept a small herd of cattle near Iitate, a picturesque village about 40km from the plant.

Although it is outside the exclusion zone, the village's mountainous topography meant radiation, carried by wind and rain, lingered, poisoning crops, water and school playgrounds.

The young, the wealthy, mothers and pregnant women left for Tokyo or elsewhere. Most of the remaining 6000 people have since evacuated, after the government accepted that safe radiation limits had been exceeded.

Mr Shoji, 75, went from shock to rage, then despair when the government told him he would have to destroy his vegetables, kill his six cows and move with his wife Fumi, 73, to an apartment in Koriyama, about 20km away. "We've heard five, maybe 10 years but some say that's far too optimistic," he says, crying. "Maybe I'll be able to come home to die." He was given initial compensation of one million yen (£7,900) by Tepco, topped up with 350,000 yen from the government.

It is the fate of people outside the evacuation zones, however, that causes the most bitter controversy. Parents in Fukushima City, 63km from the plant, have banded together to demand that the government do more to protect about 100,000 children. Schools have banned soccer and other outdoor sports. Windows are kept closed. "We've just been left to fend for ourselves," says Machiko Sato, a grandmother who lives in the city. "It makes me so angry."

Many parents have already sent their children to live with relatives or friends hundreds of kilometres away. Some want the government to evacuate the entire two million population of Fukushima Prefecture. "They're demanding the right to be able to evacuate," says anti-nuclear activist Aileen Mioko Smith, who works with the parents. "In other words, if they evacuate they want the government to support them."

So far, at least, the authorities say that is not necessary. The official line is that the accident at the plant is winding down and radiation levels outside of the exclusion zone and designated "hot spots" are safe.

But many experts warn that the crisis is just beginning. Professor Tim Mousseau, a biological scientist who has spent more than a decade researching the genetic impact of radiation around Chernobyl, says he worries that many people in Fukushima are "burying their heads in the sand." His Chernobyl research concluded that biodiversity and the numbers of insects and spiders had shrunk inside the irradiated zone, and the bird population showed evidence of genetic defects, including smaller brain sizes.

"The truth is that we don't have sufficient data to provide accurate information on the long-term impact," he says. "What we can say, though, is that there are very likely to be very significant long-term health impact from prolonged exposure."

In Soma, Mr Ichida says all the talk about radiation is confusing. "All we want to do is get back to work. There are many different ways to die, and having nothing to do is one of them."

Economic cost
Fukushima: Japan has estimated it will cost as much as £188bn to rebuild following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis.
Chernobyl There are a number of estimates of the economic impact, but thetotal cost is thought to be about £144bn.

Safety
Fukushima: workers are allowed to operate in the crippled plant up to a dose of 250mSv (millisieverts).
Chernobyl: People exposed to 350mSv were relocated. In most countries the maximum annual dosage for a worker is 20mSv. The allowed dose for someone living close to a nuclear plant is 1mSv a year.

Death toll
Fukushima: Two workers died inside the plant. Some scientists predict that one million lives will be lost to cancer.
Chernobyl: It is difficult to say how many people died on the day of the disaster because of state security, but Greenpeace estimates that 200,000 have died from radiation-linked cancers in the 25 years since the accident.

Exclusion zone
Fukushima: Tokyo initially ordered a 20km radius exclusion zone around the plant
Chernobyl: The initial radius of the Chernobyl zone was set at 30km – 25 years later it is still largely in place.

Compensation
Fukushima: Tepco's share price has collapsed since the disaster largely because of the amount it will need to pay out, about £10,000 a person
Chernobyl: Not a lot. It has been reported that Armenian victims of the disaster were offered about £6 each in 1986

Aid
Fukushima: The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported bilateral aid worth $95m
Chernobyl: 12 years after the disaster, the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, complained that his country was still waiting for international help.

Greenpeace take government to court

2011-08-27T11:13:00.002+01:00

Greenpeace UK
Search this site:

Log in|Register
Home
What we do
What you can do
Community
Blog
Donate
Greenpeace takes government to court over nuclear power expansion

26 August, 2011
Greenpeace UK has today served legal papers on the government for unlawfully failing to take into account the implications of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in their future planning for the building of new nuclear power stations at sites in Britain.

In a 1611 page legal submission to the High Court, Greenpeace is seeking a Judicial Review of the government’s decision not to take into account specialist advice on the implications of the Fukushima disaster on future reactors, which it has an obligation to do. The case made by Greenpeace against the government and the secretary of state Chris Huhne includes:

That the secretary of state unlawfully chose to press ahead with his plans for new nuclear reactors at eight sites in England and Wales (through the Nuclear National Policy Statement) without waiting to take into account relevant considerations arising from the Fukushima disaster.
That the government appears to have regarded Dr Mike Weightman’s Interim Report into the lessons from Fukushima as a ‘green light’ for proceeding with the Nuclear National Policy Statement even though that the report highlighted areas of serious concern requiring further investigation and that Dr Weightman’s review remains ongoing.
That communications between government officials and nuclear companies seems to show that there was no real intention to properly consider the implications of the disturbing events at Fukushima with an open mind as to what careful analysis of those events and their aftermath might reveal about the safety of nuclear power and the UK’s ability to respond to a major nuclear incident.
That he failed to fully consider all the risks of flooding to a nuclear site despite the evidence of how flooding affected operations at Fukishima. Five of the eight sites identified for new reactors are wholly or partly in areas classified by the Environment Agency as being areas of high flood risk.
That he failed to wait for analysis of the lessons from Fukushima on how electricity supply, both on and off site, including back up sources and supplies can be guaranteed in the event of an emergency over suitably long timescales in order to provide vital cooling for reactors. The root causes for the Fukushima station blackout and loss of power supply have not yet been properly analysed.
That the Nuclear National Policy Statement fails to fully consider the lessons from Fukushima on the need for emergency planning for on and off site consequences of a nuclear accident involving a much wider emergency situation with radiation releases over a prolonged time and involving a need to evacuate and re-house large numbers of people. The Japanese emergency planning system demonstrably failed to provide early and sufficient protection for the civilian population in Japan.
Commenting on the legal case John Sauven, Greenpeace Executive Director said:

“The tragic events of Fukushima have been a catalyst for governments around the world to look again at the safety and viability of their nuclear plans. Instead of following the lead of countries like Germany, our government has recklessly decided to push ahead with new nuclear power without properly taking into account many of the lessons from Fukushima or wider implications for the nuclear industry.

"We believe the government’s failure to properly consult experts and the public after the Fukushima tragedy amounts to a dangerous attempt to cut corners and carve out voices of concern, in order to keep pushing forward with its favoured technology. We think they should be challenged on this.

"Following Fukushima, a number of countries decided nuclear power wasn’t worth the risk or increased costs and focused on safer, clean renewable technologies. Instead in Britain, despite election promises, the coalition government is planning hundreds of millions of pounds more in hidden subsidies for the nuclear industry and dragging its heels on creating the green jobs and growth we need. This judicial review should act as wake up call for the government to think again to stop closing ranks with the nuclear industry and properly consult.”

Ends

Notes to editors:

UK governments have a long record of failure to properly or fairly consult on nuclear issues.

In February 2007 Greenpeace was successful in its application for judicial review of the then government’s decision to give policy support to nuclear power. The court held that the decision not give support to nuclear power was in breach of Greenpeace’s legitimate expectation of full consultation.
In May 2007, the government published a new consultation on the Future of Nuclear Power. A complaint by Greenpeace and other NGOs was upheld by the Market Research Standards Board which found that “..there were a number of examples where they considered that objectively viewed, information was inaccurately or misleadingly presented, or was imbalanced, which gave rise to a material risk of respondents being led towards a particular answer.”
For press enquiries call 07711 156 881
Article tagged as: Climate Change, Energy, Fukushima, Government, Judicial Review, Nuclear Power

Gazprom to invest in RWE or Horizon

2011-08-21T22:00:00.000+01:00

Amazing as it seems the UK government doesn't want to buy gas off the Russians it just wants them to build and own new nuclear power stations for us.

With the German nation wanting e.on and RWe to end their involvement in new nuclear it looks like Horizon may soon have new owners.

Gazprom are in the box seat!

Watch this space as the Getmans bail out

Urgewald invite Reg Illingworth to speak at RWE Shareholders Conference

2011-08-21T21:52:00.002+01:00

← Atomlobby beherrscht ReaktorsicherheitskommissionGreenpeace-Studie: Was Strom wirklich kostet →
Urgewald und kritische Aktionäre fordern Rücktritt von RWE-Chef Großmann
Publiziert am 19. April 2011 von AG-Öffentlichkeit//D
Pressemitteilung 19. April 2011

urgewald und Kritische Aktionäre fordern Rücktritt von RWE-Chef GroßmannDie 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.

Gegenantrag: www.kritischeaktionaere.de
Interviews vorab oder am 20. April ab 8:15 Uhr vor der Grugahalle in Essen

Kontakt und weitere Informationen: urgewald, Heffa Schücking, 0160-96 76 14 36, heffa@urgewald.de, www.urgewald.de
Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionäre, Markus Dufner, Geschäftsführer
Tel. 0221 / 599 56 47, mobil 0173 – 713 52 37,
dachverband@kritischeaktionaere.de, www.kritischeaktionäre.de

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.
← Atomlobby beherrscht ReaktorsicherheitskommissionGreenpeace-Studie: Was Strom wirklich kostet →
Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Japanese children exposed to dangerous levels of radiation

2011-08-21T21:29:00.000+01:00

Violation of the Human Rights of the Children of Fukushima

17 August 2011

We submitted this document to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on 17 August.

This submission concerns the violation of the human rights of the children of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. These children have been continually exposed to radioactive contamination since 11 March 2011, the start of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, and urgent measures are needed to reduce this exposure.

The children of Fukushima have the same right as all other children in Japan to live a life free from unnecessary, preventable radiation exposure. We urgently request that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights/OHCHR come to Japan to investigate this matter.

>Violation of the Human Rights of the Children of Fukushima (PDF)

submitted by;
The Fukushima Network for Saving Children from Radiation
Citizens Against Fukushima Aging Nuclear Power Plants (Fukuro-no-Kai)
FoE Japan (International Environmental NGO)
Green Action
Osaka Citizens Against the Mihama, Oi and Takahama Nuclear Power Plants (Mihama-no-Kai)
Greenpeace Japan

Statement from Horizon Nuclear Power

2011-07-11T11:24:00.002+01:00

Statement from Horizon Nuclear Power

“No announcement has been made regarding Horizon or UK nuclear new build. There has been no change in our plans and it’s very much business as usual for Horizon.

Both our shareholders have also publicly confirmed this position this week.

"The situation remains as it was when we spoke face to face with local people in June. We expect to have more details on our approach to the Oldbury project in the new year".

Leon Flexman Head of Communications

Leon Flexman's Response to SANE Member

2011-07-11T11:17:00.002+01:00

As you know, we are committed to open and honest communication with local people throughout the development of our proposals to build a new nuclear power station near Oldbury-on-Severn. To ensure that we are as pro-active as we can be in this regard we produce a local community update newsletter which is delivered to over 15,000 homes in the Oldbury and Thornbury area as well as to communities on the far side of the River Severn. Following the distribution last month of the fifth issue of this newsletter we have received numerous calls and emails from local people raising queries they have about our proposed project and, as always, we take care to respond to these enquiries in the fullest way we can but at this stage of the project we don’t necessarily have all the answers.

This year we have also been carrying out a programme of talks to local groups as well as instigating a series of regular drop in surgeries – both of which allow local people the opportunity to put questions directly to Horizon’s Oldbury development team. These activities are on-going and are in addition to the public exhibitions and other engagement events we will continue to hold as our prosed project develops.

It is also important to highlight that the new planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects requires developers, such as Horizon, to carry out extensive pre-application public consultation ahead of making an application for a DCO, which is effectively the planning permission for a project such as ours. This formal pre-application consultation is a key part of the new planning regime and allows local communities and individuals to review our proposals in detail and enables us to use the public feedback we receive to shape our plans. Our pre-application consultation has yet to begin and will only be carried out once sufficient information exists.

We will set out how we will consult communities at the pre-application stage in a Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC).The SOCC is being developed with local authority input and when finalised will be published in local papers and on our website.

Developing a new nuclear power station is a complex and lengthy process and we are still very much in the early stages. Your emails raise a number of questions which I have answered below as extensively as I can – given that at this stage in the development process many of the studies that will inform our future plans are still on-going or yet to be undertaken.

As you will see I have combined the responses to a number of your questions for clarity.

Flooding Issues

Your question asked why Horizon is seeking to develop a new nuclear plant at Oldbury given the site’s position on a flood plain. You also asked how the proposed development will be protected against possible flooding and how this fits with the EA’s designation of the site and Horizon’s commitment to safety.

Land adjacent to the existing power station at Oldbury is one of 8 UK sites included in the Government's draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS) as being suitable for new nuclear build. We believe that the Oldbury site meets all of the criteria set out by the Government as part of its Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) for new nuclear development. The existing power station has operated on the adjacent site safely for forty years. If managed correctly, we believe the area can accommodate a new development safely taking into account the flood plain location and the possible effects of climate change and/or a major flooding event.

In addition to demonstrating the safety of our site in the event of flooding, we will have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the regulators that the measures do not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in the locality. In fact it is possible that the steps we take may well improve flood protection for the area as a whole.

As part of the stringent planning and licensing process we are required to undertake for our proposed new nuclear power station near Oldbury-on-Severn, we will be carrying out extensive assessment of a range of potential natural events. This includes the requirement to consider events with a probability of up to 1 in 10,000 years, taking account of the possible effects of natural disasters such as tsunamis or storm surges, as well as the possible implications of climate change.

Our proposals to do this are currently being developed in conjunction with the Environment Agency (EA) and Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). They are likely to consist of a combination of raising the site level and improving existing flood protection measures. We are aware of the 1607 event you refer to in your questions and such events would have to be fully considered as part of the detailed modelling work.

You can be assured that our proposals with regards to flood protection will be assessed extremely thoroughly by the regulators. The ONR continually reviews safety arrangements against world best practice, applying knowledge from lessons learned from around the world before and throughout the operational lifetime of the plant. This includes assessing the probability of incidents with defined consequences and requires that the chance of occurrence is reduced to a level that is As Low as Reasonably Practicable – also referred to as the ALARP principle.

More information on this can be found on the HSE website. In particular you may find its report “The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations” of interest. Go towww.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/tolerability.pdf

Finally, the interim report that has been compiled after the Japanese Tsunami by the UK’s Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations Dr. Mike Weightman, recommends a review of the flood protection standards in the UK to revalidate them and we agree with that.

Cooling tower issues

You asked if Horizon has ruled out 200m high cooling towers and, if not why not. You also asked if Horizon’s preferred choice of hybrid towers will add to the overall costs of the development.

Last year we announced that Hybrid cooling towers are our preferred option for the proposed new nuclear plant near Oldbury. Circular Hybrid towers, which use fans, are up to 70m in height and are more in keeping with the existing Magnox power station. This decision to state our strong preference for hybrid towers is a key milestone for the Oldbury project and is helping to shape our on-going development work.

With hybrid cooling towers the capital cost is indeed higher than the cost of building natural draught cooling towers. Similarly, running costs for hybrid cooling towers are also more than those associated with natural draught towers, as energy will be required to power the fans, and the maintenance and equipment replacement costs are higher. However, it is important to point out that all of these costs for the cooling towers are a very small percentage of the overall figure of around £8 billion that would be invested into a new nuclear power station at Oldbury.

Natural Draft Cooling Towers (NDCT) are an efficient engineering option but they are just one of the options that we have had to consider. We have never stated they were the preferred option. The best option for the site should balance technical, commercial and environmental factors.

As part of the planning and licensing process for nuclear new build in the UK we are required to evaluate all the realistic options for the major aspects of the development and to formally consult with statutory stakeholder groups and local communities on our preferred options.

We won’t rule out natural draft cooling towers until we’ve been through that process and gauged public opinion, but we believe we’ve been as clear as we can be about our preference.

Commercial issues

You asked if the Horizon is seeking subsides from the UK tax-payer and what level of profit per KWh generated the company is seeking from Oldbury.

Firstly, Horizon is not seeking subsidies from the UK tax payer for nuclear power, all we require is a level playing field with other forms of low-carbon generation. As you are no doubt aware, the UK’s old coal, oil and nuclear power stations are coming to the end of their lives, which means that the country needs lots more power generation capacity to meet demand. In fact the Government estimates the UK will need 59GW of new capacity by 2025. In comparison we currently have 85GW of power station capacity.

The Government wants as much of that new capacity as possible to come from low carbon energy to meet the target of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 per cent from 1990 to 2050. It estimates that renewable energy will contribute up to 33GW and it wants nuclear to make up as much of the remainder as possible.

Nuclear power is the only proven technology capable of delivering large quantities of low carbon power that is available almost constantly. If you judge all the major low carbon technologies on an equal basis it is also the most economical in terms of the cost per unit of electricity generated.

As already stated in an answer above, Horizon will potentially be investing £8 billion in a new nuclear power station at Oldbury and will be seeking a return on this investment. Final investment decisions are still some years away and so we are not in a position to expand on this further.

Policy issues

You raised a number of issues with regards to recent decisions by the German Government with regards to nuclear power and asked what the implications are for Horizon’s German shareholders.

We can’t comment on behalf of our shareholders but they have said publicly that the situation in Germany has no direct impact on the new build programme in the UK. We are continuing with our development activities.

Health & wellbeing

You asked a number of questions with regards to possible links between living close to nuclear sites and instances of childhood leukaemia.

Safety and Health are our absolute top priorities and on radioactive health issues we will take our lead from the experts. The Health Protection Agency and the Independent Government advisory group COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) are the independent authorities in the UK).

COMARE’s studies strongly support the scientific consensus that the levels of radiation around nuclear power stations are much too low to cause leukaemia clusters. In its Fourteenth Report, published last month (May 2011), COMARE concluded that it saw no evidence to support the view that there is an increased risk of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Great Britain.

For more information go to: http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/documents/COMARE14report.pdf

Page 36 -55 include COMARE’s review of the German KIKK study.

Recent Events in Japan

You asked a number of questions with regards to the events in Fukushima and the subsequent decision by the Japanese Government to cancel nuclear new builds.

Without first-hand knowledge it is not appropriate for us to comment on the details of the event or the on-going response from the Japanese Government, however we’re watching the situation closely as is everyone in the nuclear industry worldwide.

The UK has very different circumstances to Japan – we don’t have magnitude 9 earthquakes and Oldbury is not near a tectonic fault line. We will use the very latest reactor technologies with very different design features. Even so the Chief Nuclear Inspector, Dr. Mike Weightman has been asked by Government to produce reports looking into the events at Fukushima so that any lessons learned can be incorporated into the safety regimes governing existing and future plant in the UK.

In his ‘interim’ report Dr Weightman has said there is no reason for new build proposals to be put on hold. The report also contains 26 recommendations designed to ensure no learnings are missed and we will shape our proposals around these recommendations.

The safety regime in the UK is extremely stringent. As outlined elsewhere in this response, developers have to undertake assessments for a wide range of natural phenomena including earthquakes and tsunami, as well as man-made threats. We have to show conclusively that our proposals are robust enough to withstand even the least likely events.

Nuclear waste storage

Following on from recent events in Japan you asked what specific safeguards we are offering the local community on safety with regards to the storage of nuclear waste on site.

We will be required to demonstrate, in our site licence application, that nuclear waste can be safely stored onsite. Those plans are not yet written but the UK has a forty-year-plus record of the safe onsite management of nuclear waste and this is internationally recognised as being robust and effectively regulated.

We will also ensure that our proposals reflect any learnings from the Chief Nuclear Inspectors reports into the events at Fukushima.

In the longer term the Government is developing proposals for the Geological Disposal Facility which will be the ultimate home for intermediate level waste, high level waste and spent fuel. The precise nature of this facility may allow the earlier removal of onsite waste to a central facility which may be a more logistically practical solution than multiple storage at sites around thecountry.

Democracy

You asked about Horizon’s views on the Government’s localism agenda and if its Localism Bill will impact on our proposed development.

The whole purpose of the extensive consultation process we are required to undertake, before a planning application is even made, is to take people’s views on board and a large proportion of those views will come from people and organisations from the area. It is very unlikely there will be a unanimous view of any sort from ‘local people’ however one might choose to define that group. We have many supporters, as well as those with concerns, and those whose views are likely to depend on the details of our plans. In our view our role is to put forward proposals that are well thought out and reflect local people’s ideas and hopes and address their concerns.

Employment

You asked about employment opportunities for local people being guaranteed.

This project will create around 800 permanent jobs which will include everything from nuclear scientists and engineers to admin staff, security guards and gardeners. The construction phase will require several thousand workers, peaking at around 5,000, and a significant demand for local goods and services.

Undoubtedly some of the workforce will be from outside the area, and some from abroad, but we will ensure that there will be jobs and work for local people during construction, operation and

decommissioning of this station. The challenge for everyone involved in nuclear new build is to make sure local opportunities are maximised.

I hope that this response goes someway to answering your queries, if you have any further queries please email oldburyequiries@horizonnuclearpower.com or call our Freephone number 0800 130 3125.

Kind regards

Leon

Leon Flexman

Head of Communications

Horizon Nuclear Power

Japanese Unions are not happy!

2011-07-11T09:54:00.002+01:00

Dear Friends,

Doro-Chiba held the 65th Central Committee Meeting on June 26, and announced the following declaration:

“Stop the implementation of outsourcing and reshaping of the transport bases”, “Revive militant labor union from workplace to confront neo-liberal offensive which has deprived all resisting forces against calamities and accidents in its greedy pursuit of profit” and “Achieve an over-all development of the Nationwide Campaign of National Railway Struggle”.

Abolish all nuclear plants by the power of international solidarity!

The united power of working class and people alone can create future!

Please participate in August 6 International Rally in Hiroshima!

In Solidarity,

International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba

http://www.doro-chiba.org/english/english.htm

Horizon Nuclear Power to close or be sold on?

2011-07-07T07:05:00.001+01:00

As we are now aware RWE and e.on have announced that they will not be building new nuclear power plants at Wylfa and Oldbury due to their dissatisfaction with UK government policy.

This means the closure of Horizon Nuclear Energy, the joint venture company they launched in 2010 .

We at SANE are pleased with this outcome but are very concerned that the large German energy utilities may use this as a strategy to put extreme pressure on the UK government and we as the people.

One question worth asking is "What will they do with the sites and land at Wylfa and Oldbury? They could act honourably and sell it on to a new purchaser at the proper market price....The price is very low due to the total unsuitability of both sites....or they could play hardball with the government, ask an extortionate amount of money for them effectively removing two of , the so-say, suitable sites from the list of eight.....I suppose it's watch this space"

Reg Illingworth of SANE says " Our work continues, as always we will be vigilant and our determination to include ethics into what the government see as a purely economic and political decision will help us in our quest.

This government and future ones must always consider the burden of nuclear energy to future generations as well as our own

Hopefully there will be no new nuclear at Oldbury and Wylfa and the country invests in renewables to become world leaders in wave and tidal power, amongst others.

We cannot rely on large, global energy companies to provide the British people with the proper energy infrastructure that we need , surely we have learn't this after the many years of energy liberalisation?"

For any comments or interviews please contact Reg, Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy, 07796 447880.

Let's bring power generation back to the people, we have the energy for it!!

Government weakly submits to energy companies

2011-06-26T08:01:00.000+01:00

Nuclear plants get the go-ahead on the day the West changed forever
Friday, June 24, 2011Western Daily PressFollow
The landscape of the West changed irrevocably yesterday as the Government made it the hub of the UK’s nuclear future.

The region is the only part of the country that will host two new nuclear power plants, ratcheting up to boiling point the already high tension between the opposing camps.

Hinkley Point
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne gave the green light to eight new reactors, including ones at both Hinkley Point in Somerset and Oldbury in South Gloucestershire.

His decision paves the way for a clash between delighted supporters of the projects, who say they will secure thousands of jobs and pump billions into the economy and appalled anti-nuclear campaigners.

They are using the worldwide spotlight on the Glastonbury Festival, which kicks off today as a focus for their opposition.

Stop Hinkley spokesman Crispin Aubrey said rather than allowing more nuclear development, the Government should follow Germany and other European countries in abandoning it, following the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

Mr Aubrey said: “After Fukushima, major European countries are showing the way towards a non-nuclear future.

“Germany is abandoning nuclear expansion plans, and going strongly for renewables, and Italy has voted by a massive majority against more nuclear plants.”

He said the arguments against include:

It will leave nuclear waste on the site for up to 160 years, adding to the stockpiles from previous nuclear plants for which there is no final resting place.

Nuclear power runs the risk of a catastrophic accident, radiation leaks and damage to local people’s health.

Nuclear power has always proved more expensive than planned, requiring massive state subsidies. The cost of Hinkley C is £8 billion and rising.

Communities round Hinkley Point will be blighted for 10 years or more by noise, construction traffic and a scarred coastline.

Britain does not need nuclear to keep the lights on and can meet future electricity demand by a mixture of cutting energy consumption, major investment in renewable sources and cleaner fossil fuel generation.

The Glastonbury Festival site is only 24 miles from Hinkley Point and it has always had a strong anti-nuclear stance – at one time it raised money for CND.

Stop Hinkley activities this year include a campaign stall encouraging festival-goers to sign a petition and support a blockade at the power station on October 3.

Reg Illingworth, who is campaigning against Oldbury, told the Daily Press: “It is far too premature to determine the full effects of Fukushima and the potential disasters that could still emanate from there.”

“The disaster in Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant was caused, not by the tsunami or earthquake, but by the human beings who built a nuclear power station close to an earthquake zone.

“Our Government risks building nuclear power plants in areas of amazingly high flood risk in a country that is, sadly, prone to significant terrorist risks without due consideration for the many generations to come.”

Anti-nuclear campaigners are targeting Hinkley as their main battle, as energy giant EDF has already submitted a planning application to West Somerset District Council for preparatory work.

Andreas Speck from Stop New Nuclear, an alliance of groups opposed to all eight new plants backed by the Government, said they would step up their campaign, targeting the blockade. He said if EDF could be forced to abandon plans at Hinkley, it hoped work at all the other planned sites would also be stopped.

EDF said yesterday’s announcement was a key step in the planning process, and it now looked forward to a Parliamentary vote before Summer Recess next month.

The firm, which is also planning for new nuclear at Sizewell in Suffolk, said they were encouraged by the broad cross-party support.

“These steps are important as we and our partner Centrica progress plans for new build at Hinkley Point and Sizewell. As we do so, safety is our number one priority.

“In turn, that will drive growth in jobs, rejuvenate the UK supply chain and help drive economic recovery.”

Alan Rayment of Horizon Nuclear Power said: “Oldbury is an excellent site for nuclear new build and a new power station here can bring hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds of investment into the area.”

“New nuclear developments can provide the UK with a clean, secure and sustainable energy future.”

Energy Minister Charles Hendry said up to 5,000 jobs could be generated at Hinkley Point alone by the construction of a new nuclear power station.

0recommendations Report

Join the anti-nuclear movement united at Hinkley in October

2011-06-26T04:27:00.000+01:00

To Reg Illingworth, Energy secretary Chris Huhne confirmed on Wednesday that the Government wants to press ahead with new nuclear power stations at eight sites, including Hinkley Point.

This really is an important time for the anti-Nuclear Power movement. As you may know, we are organising a mass blockade of Hinkley nuclear power station in October. We have stopped them at Hinkley before and with your help we can do it again. If they fail at Hinkley, it is unlikely the “nuclear renaissance” will have the momentum to continue.

PeterX2 are trying to organise accommodation for people taking part in the blockade that are unable to camp. They also need some drivers to help over the first weekend in October. Any offers of help would be most appreciated

1) Accommodation will be needed for various periods from Friday 30th September to Monday October 3rd. Most people will be camping but there will be a few people who cannot camp and we would like to offer them people's homes. Has anyone got a spare bed or even floor space? It will be a chance to meet other dedicated anti-nuclear power activists and help us accommodate everyone suitably.

2) Drivers and vehicles will be needed for a few chores over the weekend, running to and from the campsite, but mainly we are looking for people willing to collect those arrested from police stations on the Monday and take them to a central place.

Please let us know how you can help as soon as possible so we can start to organise this part of the support for the Blockade.

Could you please forward this email to anybody you know who might be able to help.

Contact: peter.j.kirkham@btinternet.com
subject: Help Stop New Nuclear

For more information about Stop New Nuclear and to sign the Pledge
visit www.stopnewnuclear.org.uk

We thank you for whatever help you can give.

Best Wishes PeterX2.

Wade Allison to speak in Bristol

2011-06-23T21:26:00.001+01:00

Subject: Science Cafe - next Monday, June 27th, Tobacco Factory, 8pm

Monday, June 27th, Tobacco Factory, 8pm - free

Life and Nuclear Radiation: Chernobyl and Fukushima in perspective

Professor Wade Allison
Ever since the Cold War with its threat of nuclear holocaust we have held radiation in awe.
But, unlike at other accidents, nobody died of radiation at Fukushima. Something is wrong! The safety of radiation is misunderstood.
Wade Allison is Professor Emeritus at Oxford University. He is the author of “Radiation and Reason: the impact of science on a culture of fear”. Copies will be available.

http://sciencecafe.co.uk

Press release from SANE about Oldbury B

2011-06-23T21:08:00.000+01:00

Today it has been announced that Oldbury remains one of the sites the government consider suitable for new nuclear reactors.

We at SANE (Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy) have the following views:-

"It is far too premature to determine the full effects of Fukushima and the potential disasters that could still emanate from there

The German government and people have decided to close the existing nuclear power stations, The Italians voted in a referendum to scrap any plans for new nuclear

We with the French now stand alone in Europe as totally unmoved by the potential disasters that can be caused by nature or humans in their planning and control systems.

The disaster in Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant was caused, not by the tsunami or earthquake, but by the human beings who built a nuclear power station close to an earthquake zone.

Our government risks building nuclear power plants in areas of amazingly high flood risk in a country that is, sadly, prone to significant terrorist risks without due consideration for the many generations to come

We ,with our colleagues from the other seven sites, will continue to be involved with discussions with DECC as we go forward, I can also envisage a lot of anxiety from the members of Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy.

We will be supporting Hinkley and Wylfa in their struggles as the potential first sites to be developed.

It is our intention to strengthen our links with municipalities in Germany to stop their energy companies, E.on and RWE, from building new nuclear in the UK.

We believe the moral standpoint of the German people and their government casts shame on our own feeble leaders in this matter.

The energy and power remains with us as a conscious set of people who fully understand the full ramifications of a complete lack of vision in energy policy in the UK.......It is us who will pay!

We pledge to peacefully halt new nuclear and to close down the existing old and risky sites, and we will overcome!"

Thank you

Reg Illingworth

if you want any comments or interviews please contact 07796 447 880

Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl!

2011-06-23T02:51:00.000+01:00

Al Jazeera / By Dahr Jamail
Scientific experts believe Japan's nuclear disaster to be far worse than governments are revealing to the public.
June 16, 2011

"Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind," Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, told Al Jazeera.

Japan's 9.0 earthquake on March 11 caused a massive tsunami that crippled the cooling systems at the Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan. It also led to hydrogen explosions and reactor meltdowns that forced evacuations of those living within a 20km radius of the plant.

Gundersen, a licensed reactor operator with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, managing and coordinating projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the US, says the Fukushima nuclear plant likely has more exposed reactor cores than commonly believed.

"Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."

TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.

"The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"

Even though the plant is now shut down, fission products such as uranium continue to generate heat, and therefore require cooling.

"The fuels are now a molten blob at the bottom of the reactor," Gundersen added. "TEPCO announced they had a melt through. A melt down is when the fuel collapses to the bottom of the reactor, and a melt through means it has melted through some layers. That blob is incredibly radioactive, and now you have water on top of it. The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."

Independent scientists have been monitoring the locations of radioactive "hot spots" around Japan, and their findings are disconcerting.

"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl," said Gundersen.

"The data I'm seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man's-land for Chernobyl.

We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can't clean all this up.

We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl."

Read more:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151328/full_meltdown:_fukushima_called_the_'biggest_industrial_catastrophe_in_the_history_of_mankind'_?page=entire

Rain to cause major problems at Fukushima!

2011-06-22T21:21:00.000+01:00

TEPCO cuts back on water due to expected rains
The Yomiuri Shimbun

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has launched efforts to reduce the amount of radioactive water being generated at its crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, given that its water decontamination system has not been functioning properly and the rainy season has officially arrived in the area.

The efforts began following the Meteorological Agency's announcement Tuesday that the rainy season has begun in the Tohoku region, which includes Fukushima Prefecture, where the plant is located.

TEPCO workers are covering the roofs of reactor buildings that were blown off in hydrogen explosions after the March 11 disaster to keep rainwater out, and the utility has cut back on the amount of cooling water being injected into the reactors.

The highly radioactive water accumulated at the Fukushima power station after leaking from damaged reactors. If it cannot be disposed of smoothly, it is feared it may overflow trenches and storage tanks before the end of the month.

But reducing the water being poured into the damaged reactors puts the plant operator in dilemma, since if the volume of water is reduced, temperatures in the reactors will likely rise. In fact, temperatures inside the No. 3 reactor have already risen slightly.

The amount of water being injected into the Nos. 1 and 2 reactors was reduced by half a ton per hour Tuesday for the second straight day to 3.5 tons per hour and four tons per hour, respectively. But plant workers have continued pouring 10 tons per hour into the No. 3 reactor because of high temperatures inside, TEPCO said.

Other measures to deal with expected heavy rain include installing sandbags around the reactor facilities, and covering roofs and doors with steel sheets.

Contaminated water in an operational trench for the No. 3 reactor reached its highest level when it rose to 12 centimeters below the top of the trench at 7 a.m. Wednesday. If decontamination does not proceed smoothly, the polluted water could overflow by next Wednesday, or even earlier if rainwater gets in.

Water levels in the same trench rose by 6.5 centimeters a day when an extratropical cyclone passed over the plant at the end of May, the utility said.

The Meteorological Agency has forecast precipitation for the coming month in the southern Tohoku region will be less than normal, but warned there was the possibility it would rain more heavily toward the end of the rainy season.

Radiation of 430 millisieverts per hour was detected near the No. 2 reactor at the Fukushima plant, TEPCO said Wednesday.

The extremely high radiation level was measured at a mezzanine floor between the first floor and the basement of the No. 2 reactor building. This figure is the highest ever recorded in the building.

Highly radioactive water is believed to have leaked from the damaged reactor pressure suppression chamber in the basement, a TEPCO official said.

TEPCO workers entered the basement for the first time since the March 11 disaster Tuesday and measured radiation on the stairway on the northwestern side of the building.

(Jun. 23, 2011)

SANE places advert in tomorrows Bristol Evening Post

2011-05-26T15:42:00.000+01:00

We are placing an educational advert in the Bristol Evening Post tomorrow which questions the governments wisdom to place two or three new nuclear reactors at the Shepperdine site, a mere 13 miles from Bristol City Centre.

Approximately one million people live within the 30 km radius from the Shepperdine site.

We have been interviewed by Jack and Breeze FM which will be broadcast on their news feature in the morning tomorrow.

There is a growing irritation in the SANE membership that the government and the HSE are totally underestimating the effects of errors, accidents or terrorism at the proposed new nuclear power plants

The Germans will protect us from E.on and RWE and our own government

2011-05-25T18:51:00.000+01:00

Thankfully the german public and government realise that German companies should not be allowed to build new nuclear plants anywhere in the world, including the UK.

We the people of SANE thank you for your compassion and determination to end the sin of nuclear.

New Nukes

Plans by E.ON and RWE to build new nuclear reactors in Britain are in limbo because of the backlash against nuclear power in Germany after the Fukushima Dai-ichi meltdown, The Times has learnt. Bankers and industry sources also said that the cash-strapped RWE would struggle to fund its share of the multibillion-pound programme even if it went ahead. Horizon, the British new-build joint venture set up by the two German companies, had been due to award the contract to build its first reactors on Anglesey early this year. Work is still under way to assess competing bids from two consortiums, fronted by the reactor groups Areva and Westinghouse, to build them. But a decision is now not expected this year, according to several s! ources. One source close to RWE’s supervisory board, whose approval is necessary for strategic moves, said that the contract would not be awarded in the next “three to six months, at the earliest”. The source said that taking such steps to build new reactors overseas while the industry was under a cloud in Germany would be seen domestically as “politically provocative”. there is fierce lobbying going on behind the scenes directed at Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, who is drawing up a White Paper to reform the electricity market. RWE is furious about the Government’s carbon tax, which has made its task of convincing the board in Germany to back new- build plans more difficult. Putting a floor under the price of carbon to support nuclear power also penalises coal plants, which RWE relies on to generate much of its electricity. It will also result in a windfall for its competitor EDF Energy, which owns British Energy, the nuclear genera! tor.

Times 25th May 2011

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3038210.ece

For TEPCO could we read RWE or E.on in future?

2011-05-22T17:14:00.002+01:00

Please note the potential liability to TEPCO is $123 billion for the Fukushima disaster and obviously untold damage to health.

Recently our government put a cap on liabilities to private companies such as e.on, RWE and edf to £1 billion or approximately $1.5 billion?

Did the USA help BP out in the Mexican Gulf?

Who will make up the shortfall?....I think we all know who!

Nuclear is dead around the world and the sooner our government realises we can start to confront the massive challenges that our impoverished country has.

Erratic information fuels mistrust of TEPCO

By Hiroshi Hiyama (AFP) – 6 hours ago

TOKYO — Tokyo Electric Power's belated admission that damage to crippled reactors at its nuclear plant is worse than it first thought has fuelled suspicion it withheld bad news in the first days of Japan's crisis.

A series of revisions to earlier assessments about damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have emerged since the utility began sending workers into reactor buildings for the first time.

More than two months after the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl was triggered, TEPCO last week admitted fuel rods inside reactor cores melted down in the first few hours after the March 11 tsunami disabled cooling systems.

It was a sharp reversal of earlier assessments from both TEPCO and the government that meltdown was unlikely, reactors were relatively stable and dangerous radiation leaks had been largely contained.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan conceded that the government failed to see flaws in TEPCO's earlier assumptions and has called for a regulatory overhaul.

"What I told the public was fundamentally wrong," Kan told a parliament session Friday. "We failed to respond to TEPCO's mistaken assumptions. I am deeply sorry," he said.

TEPCO said it had revised earlier information only after it could send workers close enough to the reactors to read gauges but critics argue that independent experts reached similar conclusions much earlier.

"The way TEPCO releases information utterly lacks any sense of crisis," the Nikkei business daily said in a recent front-page analysis.

"Two months after the accident happened, it admitted a meltdown at reactor one. But many experts pointed out that possibility immediately after the accident happened," the newspaper said.

"They do not mention bad news until it is confirmed. Such an attitude has led to mistrust," the Nikkei said.

The biggest utility in Asia, TEPCO is a regional monopoly supplying power to Tokyo and its surrounding Kanto region in central Japan.

With a track record of safety cover-ups, TEPCO has been criticised for inadequately preparing for disaster, helped by soft regulation by a government organisation also tasked with promoting nuclear power.

The liberal Asahi Shimbun said in an editorial that TEPCO and official regulators avoided direct reference to the term "meltdown" to "lead the public into underestimating what was really happening."

Public anger and confusion have intensified, and critics say the latest revisions underline the slowness of moves to ensure the safety of nearby residents.

Shortly after the emergency began, the government asked those living within a three-kilometre (two-mile) radius from the plant to evacuate as a precaution.

The government and TEPCO gradually expanded the evacuation area to 20 kilometres as the plant continued to release radioactive materials, and recommended those between 20-30 kilometres stay indoors.

Last week it started moving people from towns beyond the zone, with tens of thousands of people having had to flee their homes.

Even after hydrogen explosions blew away concrete buildings that housed reactors, officials maintained that the reactors themselves had remained intact, posing a relatively low "immediate" risk to health.

It was later learned that massive radiation leaks peaked around the time of the explosions in the first few days, while many nearby residents still remained at home.

Fukushima Daiichi is believed to have released a 10th of the material emitted by the Chernobyl plant in 1986, but the situation has not yet been resolved.

The Atomic Energy Society of Japan, a nationwide conference of nuclear scientists, said in a report that TEPCO and authorities failed to adequately explain the situation.

"Radiation safety is complex and difficult to understand," the society said.

"The logic behind radiation's effects on human health... was not accurately communicated, inviting unnecessary confusions," it said.

"(The authorities) are seen holding back information and have lost credibility," it said.

In the wake of the disaster, TEPCO posted the biggest loss in Japanese corporate history for a non-financial firm and its president Masataki Shimizu stepped down.

"More can be done to think about our customers," he said of his company's inward looking corporate culture on Friday. Compensation is expected to hit as much as 10 trillion yen ($123 billion).

No one has yet died as a result of radiation exposure, but Fukushima residents have voiced worries about long-term health effects amid scepticism that TEPCO can honour its pledge to end the crisis by January.

Recent video of Reg Illingworth

2011-05-22T10:47:00.000+01:00

Reg was recently interviewed by Lucia, a final year journalism student at UWE in Bristol.

Check it out and the other three videos which form the Shepperdine story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXov87BgWIk

Sellafield Sleaze......Job at any cost!

2011-05-22T10:09:00.000+01:00

Times & Star

GREENPEACE LIFTS LID ON ‘PUSH FOR NUCLEAR POWER AT ANY COST’

Last updated at 10:47, Saturday, 21 May 2011

Greenpeace is the sworn enemy of the nuclear industry.

Sellafield

The environmental group this week unveiled 118 pages of minutes and other documents, mostly obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which it claims undermine the case for a new power station at Sellafield.

It hopes the findings might force a rethink of the NuGen consortium’s plan to start building in 2015.

The scheme will create 5,000 jobs in the construction phase and 1,000 permanent jobs once the plant opens in 2023.

In fact, many of Greenpeace’s “revelations” were already public knowledge, such as problems with the site’s geology and difficulties in accessing the National Grid.

But the documents do shed light on a behind-the-scenes campaign to promote Sellafield as suitable for nuclear new build against improbable odds.

That campaign began in January 2008, the month that the then Business Secretary John Hutton gave the green light to a new generation of nuclear power plants.

He told the Commons that the power stations, to be built by the private sector, would most likely be located at or near existing nuclear installations.

He also pledged to streamline the planning process to prevent delays from lengthy public inquiries.

Five days after his announcement, Cumbria’s movers and shakers held a ‘nuclear influencing strategy workshop’ at the Castle Green Hotel in Kendal.

Rosie Mathisen, director of nuclear opportunities at West Lakes Renaissance, was in the chair.

Also present were representatives from Copeland, Allerdale and Cumbria County councils, Sellafield unions, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Cumbria Vision, Northwest Development Agency, Invest in Cumbria, and Carl Carter from Copeland MP Jamie Reed’s office.

They saw the Government’s announcement as a huge opportunity to bring jobs to west Cumbria.

The minutes obtained by Greenpeace say: “There has to be a sense of urgency in our work.

“This opportunity is on our watch and is certainly one of the big transformational projects we must go all out to win – despite not being favoured.”

The minutes of that first meeting spelt out some of the obstacles.

The biggest was the remoteness of Cumbria from the large urban centres where electricity is needed and the lack of a 400kv connection to the National Grid.

This would require 50m-high pylons, instead of the usual 30m pylons, possibly crossing the Lake District National Park.

There was an admission too that the geology of Sellafield was far from ideal.

The minutes say: “Bedrock is too far down in most areas but the area behind the Windscale Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor is okay if a little costly.”

The group also identified points in Sellafield’s favour, not least a “willing and accepting” community supportive of nuclear power.

There was a suggestion – seized on by Greenpeace – that west Cumbria might agree to have an underground repository for long-term storage of nuclear waste in return for getting power stations.

The minutes say: “No consensus on how/when to play our trump card – that west Cumbria has a community willing to host a high-level repository but perhaps only if we get new build and socio-economic money that follows to benefit the community.”

Some of the more intriguing ideas floated at this meeting included asking the BBC to make a fly-on-the-wall documentary about the campaign and using a proposed bridge across Morecambe Bay to carry the high-voltage power line from Sellafield.

Two months later, a steering group was formed called ‘Building the Case for New Build at Sellafield’. It identified another problem – plutonium contamination in the sea bed off Sellafield that might interfere with plans to take water to cool any new reactors.

The minutes say: “It was confirmed that a mud bank of silt is evident, which contains plutonium.

“There is approximately one third of a tonne, which is an obvious issue.”

Minutes of subsequent meetings outline how the campaign evolved, lobbying the Department for Business and Enterprise, the utility companies and the National Grid.

There was a media push to promote Sellafield as suitable for nuclear new build, channelled through “friendly press contacts”.

The campaign received impetus in July 2008 when Mr Hutton unveiled the Energy Coast masterplan, a vision to create 16,000 jobs and make west Cumbria a world leader in energy generation.

The News & Star reported: “The announcement is the clearest hint yet that Sellafield as a site for a new nuclear power station, though no decision has yet been taken.”

A month later, the steering group minutes report that “90 per cent” of the route for the high-voltage power line had been agreed with the National Grid but it had still to persuade any of the energy companies to pick Sellafield as a preferred site.

A breakthrough came early in 2009 when the Nuclear Decommissioning agreed to “nominate” Sellafield as a suitable site for a power station.

Shortly afterwards three locations in west Cumbria – Sellafield, Braystones, and Kirksanton near Millom – were among 11 potential sites named by the Government.

Braystones and Kirksanton were later dropped but Sellafield was snapped up by NuGen, a consortium made up of Iberdrola, GDF Suez and Scottish & Southern Energy.

NuGen acquired an option to buy 500 acres of land subject to final approval.

The campaign cleared another hurdle last October when the incoming Coalition Government confirmed Sellafield as one of eight sites earmarked for new reactors.

Greenpeace argues that the minutes of these meetings show the ‘expression of interest’ from local authorities in having a long-term waste repository were a smokescreen to promote nuclear new build.

It is uncomfortable at the way the campaign to promote new build was pursued by council officials and representatives of various quangos behind closed doors.

There was little public awareness of this campaign apart from a News & Star report, in March 2008, that West Lakes Renaissance and Cumbria Vision were launching “a bid to make Sellafield the centre of the Government’s planned expansion for the nuclear industry”.

Greenpeace said this week: “The councils, and others who initiated these meetings, seem to view west Cumbria and the Lake District as their private fiefdom to be offered up for nuclear waste dumping.

“Their blind pursuit of nuclear jobswill cost jobs and income in the tourism, food and drink, and agricultural sectors dearly.

“These minutes expose the cynical machinations behind the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely stakeholder-engagement programme.

“Claims about openly discussing nuclear waste disposal are a sham based on a hidden agenda.

“The discussions on disposal should now be halted.

“The councils should not be allowed to take any further steps until there is full disclosure and examination of all the documents concerning new build and waste from all parties involved.”

But voices in west Cumbria have dismissed Greenpeace’s claims as the predictable views of an organisation implacably imposed to the nuclear industry.

Tim Knowles, Cumbria County Council’s cabinet member responsible for nuclear issues, said: “Anybody reading Greenpeace’s propaganda would think they are oblivious to the fact that 70 per cent of the country’s higher-level nuclear waste is already stored at Sellafield and that Cumbria is already at the heart of Britain’s nuclear industry.

“The fact that the county and district councils are supporters of the nuclear industry is no more surprising than a London-based environmental pressure group trying to argue the county’s economy should be built solely on B&Bs, tea rooms and sheep farms.

“In the real world, local authorities in Cumbria need to work with the Government on behalf of their communities.

“There is no hidden agenda and there are no ‘trump cards’.

“If Cumbria is not the right place to have an underground repository for radioactive waste and if it’s not supported by local people then we will oppose it.

“If building one or more of the new generation of nuclear power stations and improving the county’s connections to the National Grid are not in the best interests of local communities then we will oppose them.

“But at this stage, we are at the table with Government and looking at the evidence while talking to local communities in a process which is both open and transparent.

“No decisions have been made and voluntarism is an important principle underpinning the approach to an underground repository.

“Cumbria County Council makes no apologies for working with the nuclear industry and Government in the best interests of the public.”

First published at 08:55, Saturday, 21 May 2011
Published by http://www.newsandstar.co.uk

Plea for support from Japanese farmers and fishermen

2011-05-22T03:27:00.000+01:00

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your support and solidarity.

From several eyewitnesses we have confirmed following information on the unprecedented repression in the Tokyo High Court Building on Friday:

(1) Immediately after the High Court “warned” the protesters to leave the High Court Building, the police physically assaulted the protesters and arrested around 40 protesters for “trespassing”.
In any countries, including Japan, the crime of trespassing cannot be applied to people who are in a public building without prior notice to leave and without reasonable time to leave.

(2) The police also arrested a secretary of one of the lawyers of the Narita Farmers League who was only in the building to perform the job.

(3) After demonstration in the morning and the court procedure in the afternoon, the 89 years old Secretary General of the Farmers League, KITAHARA Koji, became very tired and took a rest in a waiting room while other farmers protested the ruling of the judge. Nevertheless the police arrested Mr Kitahara without any advance warning whatsoever.

(4) The 50 arrestees are detained separately in different police stations, often in very remote areas in Tokyo, so that the lawyers could visit only 20 arrestees or so in the Friday evening and Saturday early morning.

This is a video taken on the sidewalk of the Tokyo High Court.

http://youtu.be/d54jmGBVEDk

The Japanese government are now oppressing farmers and fishers in Fukushima, victims of the nuclear catastrophe, who have started to fight like Narita farmers. The unprecedented, unjust and unlawful mass arrest of Friday is done in order to intimidate people in Fukushima and beyond.

Please forward this email as widely as possible, send protest message to the Japanese government’s email form below and organize anti-nuke struggle all around the world.

https://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/forms/comment_ssl.html

In Solidarity,
International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba
Seto Tadashi

Environment Agency calculates risk of Oldbury Power Station being hit by a Tsunami as 1 in 10.

2011-05-16T20:20:00.002+01:00

Environment Agency calculates risk of Oldbury Power Station being hit by a

Tsunami as 1 in 10.

It was with great surprise that I read an exclusive article involving the Environment Agency in the Bristol Evening Post on April 20^th 2011.

It gives insight into how they approach risk assessment. According to the Environment Agency and Bristol City Council, they are worried that high tides in the Bristol Channel combined with heavy rainfall over the City and a big swell coming down the Avon, low lying areas of Bristol will flood. Taking this as the Environment Agency assessment, then this must have extreme consequences for the low lying areas bordering the estuary, including Oldbury-on-Severn.

Graham Quarrier, project manager for the Environment Agency says in the article, that we have no worries about a Tsunami such as the one that struck Japan as this is a “one in one thousand year event”. However, if it did happen our current sea defences would be overwhelmed, affecting areas such as Weston-Super-Mare, Clevedon, and Avonmouth. “The existing defences, and those we are planning to construct over the next century, are all designed to prevent flooding from ordinary high tides and storm surges” said Mr Quarrier.

He went on to state however: “Though it is clearly possible that there could be an earthquake out in the Atlantic, the risk is calculated as being a “one in one thousand year event”.

Now, bear in mind that Berkeley Power Station was started in 1956, and according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the final site clearance would not take place until 2092, and be finally finished by 2101.

The existing power station at Oldbury was begun in 1967 and by building a new reactor there now, would mean a continuous nuclear presence on this site for well over a hundred years, meaning that Mr Quarrier’s “one in one thousand year event”, suddenly becomes a one in ten chance during that one hundred year period, of being hit by a devastating Tsunami. This is based directly on the figures supplied by Mr Quarrier and the Environment Agency.

So, Mr Quarrier, I put it to you, that if you and the Environment Agency think a risk factor of one in ten, according to your own statement, is a safe and satisfactory safety margin, I for one beg to differ.

I wonder where Mr Quarrier lives, probably well away from the Severn Estuary, and probably a fair way in land, and very probably a long way from Oldbury-on-Severn.

Yours sincerely,

Ashley Haigh, a Thornbury resident.

Coaltion should be up-front about nuclear subsidy

2011-05-16T13:15:00.000+01:00

"Coalition should be up-front about nuclear subsidy" says Committee

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/742/74202.htm

16 May 2011

The Government risks distorting its planned reform of the electricity market merely to save political face over implicit subsidies for nuclear power, MPs on the Energy and Climate Change Committee warn in a report out today.

The Coalition Agreement pledged to allow new nuclear power stations to be built 'provided that they receive no public subsidy'. But MPs believe that Government proposals will effectively provide subsidies to nuclear generators through new long term contracts and a carbon price floor that could hand them windfall profits.
Tim Yeo MP, Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, said:

"Ministers believe that new nuclear could play a key role in keep the lights on and meeting our climate change targets—but they don’t want to own up to supporting it.

This is understandable given the promise they made not to subsidise nuclear, but it would be deeply irresponsible to skew the whole process of electricity market reform simply to save face.

The Government must be up front about the support it is giving to nuclear and not hide subsidies in a one-size-fits-all design for long-term energy contracts."

Background

Over one hundred billion pounds of investment is needed by 2020 to replace the UK's aging power stations, cut carbon emissions and maintain energy security. Government proposals for Electricity Market Reform (EMR) are supposed to encourage power companies to deliver clean affordable energy, even when there are more inflexible and intermittent sources of electricity in the mix.

The committee's findings

The committee is concerned that the current EMR proposals are over-complex and could fail to attract the £110 billion investment needed in the electricity generation alone by 2020. It is calling on the Government to simplify its package of reforms to provide a more certain framework for investors. The starting point for EMR should be a clearly defined objective to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity generation in the UK to 50g of CO2 per kilowatt hour (KWh) by 2030.

Conclusions

The wholesale market should be fundamentally reformed to break up the dominance of the Big Six energy companies, in order to allow new entrants to invest in the UK and improve the liquidity of the market.
The long term contracts designed to encourage low carbon energy sources—known as Feed-in-Tariffs with Contracts for Difference—will work for nuclear, but different types of contract are needed for renewables and other clean technologies.
It is too early for the Government to design a capacity mechanism given the rapid development of smart meters, interconnectors and storage systems that could remove the need for "peaking plant".
The Carbon Price Support is a necessary short term solution to weaknesses in the EU Emission Trading System, but will increase costs for consumers and could provide a windfall for nuclear and renewables generators.

The Chair of the committee, Tim Yeo MP, said:

"The Government must go back to the drawing board and come up with a more straightforward and coherent set of plans to reform the electricity market.

Radical reform of the wholesale energy market is needed to stop the Big Six from stitching it up, but at the moment Ministers are only tinkering at the margins."

The MPs also call on the Government to be up front about the effect that reforms will have on energy bills. Tim Yeo MP added:

"Cleaning up our power sector will cost money, but the long term benefits for the UK of having a secure, reliable and low-carbon electricity system are clear.

In the short to medium term bills will rise, but in the long term people will see savings—Ministers should be open about that."

Report: Electricity Market Reform

Contents

Terms of Reference
Summary
1 Introduction

Carbon Price Support Consultation

Acknowledgments

2 Background

The British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA)

The new priorities

The investment challenge

New sources of finance are needed

Investment is a global game

What the Government is proposing

3 DECC's high level objectives

4 The electricity wholesale market

The need for reform of the wholesale market

Liquidity and the problem of Vertically Integrated Players (VIPs)

Ofgem's role in improving liquidity

5 Long term contracts

Designing a UK FIT

Different levels of Feed-in Tariffs for different low-carbon technologies

Different kinds of Feed-in Tariff for different low-carbon technologies

Feed-in Tariffs and new nuclear

How will contracts be designed?

6 Carbon Price Support (CPS)

Carbon Price Support in EMR

Carbon Price Support in the 2011 Budget

Creating a price for carbon

The effectiveness of a unilateral Carbon Price Support

Uncertainty

Windfall profits

Impacts on competitiveness

7 Capacity mechanism

Rationale and objectives

Institutional arrangements

Design features

8 Emissions Performance Standard (EPS)
9 Investment: risks and returns

The need for "fair" returns

The need for confidence

The need for simplicity

Interactions between CPS and FITs

Interactions between FITs and a capacity mechanism

Political acceptability

11 Demand side measures

What can demand side measures deliver?

Demand side measures and the EMR proposals

Carbon Price Support

Feed-in Tariffs

12 Transition period and implementation of the new regime

Avoiding an investment hiatus

Transition from the Renewables Obligation to Feed-in Tariffs

Need for a roadmap

13 Conclusion
Conclusions and recommendations
Formal Minutes
Witnesses
List of printed written evidence
List of additional written evidence
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
Oral and written evidence
18 January 2011
25 January 2011
2 February 2011
8 February 2011
15 February 2011
15 March 2011 (morning)15 March 2011 (afternoon)
Written Evidence
Additional written evidence (unprinted)

Energy and Climate Change - Additional (Unprinted) Written Evidence [Back to Report]
Electricity Market Reform

Here you can browse the Written Evidence ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 January 2011.

CONTENTSMemorandum submitted by Dr Barrie Murray

Memorandum submitted by Swanbarton Limited

Memorandum submitted by Ecolateral Ltd

Memorandum submitted by CHPA

Memorandum submitted by Westinghouse

Memorandum submitted by the Nuclear Industry Association

Memorandum submitted by the Renewable Energy Association

Memorandum submitted by ESB International

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Electricity Producers.

Memorandum submitted by Welsh Power Group

Memorandum submitted by Scottish Renewables

Memorandum submitted by InterGen UK

Memorandum submitted by RES

Annex

Memorandum submitted by the Low Carbon Group

Supplementary memorandum submitted by Low Carbon Group

Memorandum submitted by the Institution of Engineering and Technology

Memorandum submitted by Grantham Research Institute and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy

Memorandum submitted by Professor Michael Grubb, Faculty of Economics / Electricity Policy Research Group, Cambridge University

Memorandum submitted by Alex Henney, EEE Ltd

Memorandum submitted by Mainstream Renewable Power

Memorandum submitted by Carlton Power

Nuclear Power Stations: Environment Protection

9 May 2011 : Column 1024W
Martin Horwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the additional revenue that will accrue to existing nuclear power station operators as a result of the carbon price support proposals announced in the 2011 Budget. [52152]
Justine Greening: The carbon price floor announced in the Budget is intended to create economic incentives toward low-carbon electricity generation and away from high-carbon generation. All types of low-carbon technologies will be incentivised by the price floor. The impact on utility companies' profitability will depend on the overall composition of their generation portfolios and future investment decisions.
The existing nuclear sector is likely to benefit by an average of £50 million per annum to 2030 due to higher wholesale electricity prices. Similarly, the renewable energy sector is expected to benefit by an average of at least £25 million a year to 2030.

Hot news out of Japan......

2011-05-15T23:31:00.002+01:00

Share |

Monday, May 16, 2011

SENTAKU MAGAZINE
The new enervated Tepco
Sentaku
With the onset of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant crisis following the March 11 Tohoku-Pacific earthquake, radioactive substances continue to seep into the sea, air and soil. Residents within a designated proximity of the plant will likely have to live away from their homes a long time. The prospect of the situation returning to normal is nowhere in sight.

Although the government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), the operator of the ill-fated plant, have worked out plans to pay compensation to victims of the crisis, it appears they are interested less in protecting people from radiation than in preserving the existing semi-monopolistic system of the power industry and in enabling the government of Prime Minister Naoto Kan to survive.

Japan has 10 electric power companies, each of which is given a monopoly of generating and distributing power within a designated region.

Some observers say the government and Tepco have sought to "trivialize" the effect of the Fukushima accidents by working out a scenario in which the power company, which should bear the total responsibility, survives with "public funding." The public at large ultimately picks up the whole bill.

Under that scenario, a new organization would be established to help Tepco oversee compensation payments to nuclear accident victims. The new body would guarantee the survival of Tepco. Not only would the government fund the new body but also the other regional power companies with nuclear plants — by chipping in their share as insurance premiums for future accidents.

Even by selling its assets and cutting executive and employee remuneration, Tepco would not be able to pay all compensation claims resulting from the Fukushima plant accidents. The eventual financial burden would be borne by people in the form of taxes and higher electricity rates.

One factor that has given rise to this haphazard scenario is the need to prevent feared chaos in the financial market if Tepco were to go under. Tepco's share plummeted from the pre-accident price of around ¥2,100 to a mere ¥292 at one point after March 11. Although it recovered to nearly ¥500 after the government's support program and Tepco's road map for bringing the Fukushima nuclear crisis under control were announced, further damage to the reactors or serious radioactive leaks could very well make Tepco shares worthless.

Tepco's interest-bearing liabilities, including corporate bonds, total more than ¥7.3 trillion, most of which is owed to insurance companies and financial institutions, both private and government-owned. The biggest lender is the Development Bank of Japan, which is 100 percent state-owned. It has lent more than ¥300 billion to Tepco.

Shortly after the Fukushima plant accidents, major banks committed another ¥2 trillion in credit lines to Tepco, including ¥600 billion from Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp.

Should Tepco go bankrupt, not only would the Japanese financial market be thrown into an utter chaos, but international markets would lose their trust in Japanese banking institutions to the extent that the institutions would have to pay higher interest rates to secure funds.

If worse comes to worst, Tepco share certificates would become worthless sheets of paper for 600,000 shareholders as well as for many corporate pension funds that have included Tepco stock in their portfolios. The steep drop in Tepco's stock price has already dealt a blow to investment funds in the United States. Nearly 20 percent of its stock is held by non-Japanese investors. This has reportedly led the Obama administration to urge the Kan government to take steps to prevent a further decline in Tepco stock.

Tepco is now attempting to divert public opinion away from its responsibility for the nuclear crisis to the need to secure a stable supply of electricity. Shortly after its Fukushima power station was damaged, the company announced that it would have to impose "planned rolling power outages" to make up for reduced power generation.

By emphasizing that abandoning nuclear power generation would lead to prolonged outages, Tepco sought to convince the public that it is better to rely on nuclear power generation than endure power outages and that it is time to help Tepco with public funds. This is an ultimate form of defiance by Tepco.

Industrial circles, especially manufacturing, were thrown into a panic by the government's plan to make it mandatory for major electric power users to reduce consumption by 25 percent this summer. This could be a matter of life and death for manufacturers whose activities are already hindered by the disruption of production at component suppliers located in areas devastated by the earthquake and tsunami. This fear has served to change the attitude of the business community from one of criticizing Tepco to seeking stable power supply.

It is clear that Tepco President Masataka Shimizu, who for health reasons failed to make a public appearance for some time after the Fukushima No. 1 crisis developed, is not fulfilling his job. Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata parried questions at a recent news conference to explain Tepco's road map for action to end the Fukushima crisis. Tepco's top management appears dysfunctional and in need of leadership. There is the strong view that this dysfunction led to errors early on that exacerbated the crisis. Katsumata said at the news conference that he was not hesitant about pouring seawater onto the nuclear reactors to cool them after the quake-tsunami. But other sources point out that if he is telling the truth, the seawater would have been used a half day or more earlier.

Tepco's corporate structural problem, which led to the Fukushima accidents, surfaced in the spring of 2002 when a whistle-blower revealed that Tepco managers had covered up troubles found at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and falsified reports to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Subsequently, similar irregularities were reported at the Fukushima No. 2 plant and the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata Prefecture. These incidents created so much anger among municipalities and citizens that Tepco was forced to suspend the operation of all its nuclear plants. Katsumata and Shimizu are able executives in normal times but are not of the caliber to exercise crisis leadership.

Questions have been raised in many quarters, notably business leaders abroad, as to why Shimizu or Katsumata does not take command at the Fukushima No. 1 plant site, where hundreds of people — firefighters, Self-Defense Force personnel as well as employees of Tepco and Tepco subcontractors — are braving radiation risks to do repair work. Without the presence of Katsumata or Shimizu, how are workers suppose to lift their morale?

As Tepco's top executives appear unable to judge which is more important — the frontline (Fukushima No. 1), the Tepco headquarters or the prime minister's headquarters, they are snuggling up to the government. The people in Tepco's top management today have forgotten to pay attention to electricity users and local residents living near power stations.

Tepco, which has survived until now through collusion with the government, has lost the honorable face as the leader of the power industry. It is wandering about.

This is an abridged translation of an article from the May issue of Sentaku, a monthly magazine covering Japanese political, social and economic issues.

Share |

We welcome your opinions. Click to send a message to the editor.
The Japan Times
(C) All rights reserved

Meltdown in reactor 1 at Fukushima confirmed

2011-05-15T23:02:00.000+01:00

Rapid meltdown occurs in No.1 reactor

Tokyo Electric Power Company says most of the fuel rods in the No.1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel within 16 hours of the earthquake on March 11th.

The plant operator revealed its findings on Sunday.

TEPCO said it analyzed the data and calculated a timeline for developments in the No. 1 reactor on the assumption that it lost its cooling system as soon as the tsunami hit.

The firm said that about four and half hours after the quake the level of water in the pressure vessel fell below the top of fuel rods and that parts of them began melting.

The temperature of the rods is believed to have reached 2,800 degrees Celsius at this stage, and the meltdown advanced rapidly.

Almost all the rods melted and dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel by 6:50 am on March 12th.

TEPCO said the temperature dropped after water was poured into the reactor starting at 5:50 AM the same day.

The firm says the melted rods created small holes in the bottom of the vessel. It believes the amount of radioactive substances that could spread from the reactor will be limited.

NHK's correspondent says TEPCO should analyze the situations at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors as soon as possible.

Monday, May 16, 2011 05:31 +0900 (JST)

From our friends in Japan

2011-05-14T15:51:00.000+01:00

Dear Friends,

We'd like to send herewith the Doro-Chiba Quake Report ## 18 and 19 and our the petition for immediate shutdown of nuke plants initiated by Hiroshima and Fukushima anti-nuke movements.

Kan administration asked Chubu Electric Power Company (CHUBU) to halt operation of the Hamaoka nuclear power plant, and CHUBU has reluctantly accepted Prime Minister KAN Naoto’s request.

Kan is driven into a very corner by the flashing anger of the affected people and anti-nuke demonstrations, and this is his last hope that a fraud of ”suspending” operation of Hamaoka might put escalating anti-nuke movement to rest.
We won't take it! We will trigger a domino effect of shutdown of all nuclear power plants and force Kan and 9 electric power companies to demolish all of them.
The united power of working class and people alone can create future!
Stop mass dismissal of one million under the pretext of the huge quake!
Abolish nuclear plants by the power of international solidarity!

In Solidarity,
International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba
http://www.doro-chiba.org/english/english2.htm

An urgent appeal to the world from Hiroshima and Fukushima

We demand the immediate shutdown of all nuclear power plants

To the Prime Minister of Japan, Naoto Kan

So that the genocide and misery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will never be repeated we demand as follows: 1. Stop all nuclear development and abolish all nuclear power plants

immediately 2. Compensate all damages and losses caused by the Fukushima Daiichi

power plant 3. Stop the control of information and put the safety of workers and residents

first

4. Abolish all nuclear weapons and related facilities

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident has brought about unprecedented radioactive contamination and environmental destruction. “Nuclear plants are absolutely safe...clean and free from catastrophe.” It is now obvious to everyone that these words were lies! Countless workers and residents are being exposed to high levels of radiation. The farming and fishing industries are in peril. The health of all people: children, neighboring residents, as well as the workers fighting to prevent the meltdown, are in danger. Even their lives are at stake. Nobody can say to what extent the radioactive contamination will damage the environment. The fallout caused by only one nuclear power plant is 1000 times greater than the Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This enormous amount of radiation is more than enough to destroy the ecosystem. We must stop by any means a recurrence of the power station accident and any further exposure to radiation. We demand the immediate shutdown of all operating nuclear power plants and their abolishment. We call on all people worldwide for joining us in this movement with the sufferers of Fukushima as well as Hibakusha (A bomb victims) who have struggled for over six decades, insisting “No More Hiroshimas! No More Nagasakis!”

This appeal was drafted by the following ad hoc committee:

Reiko Shimoda(Anti war association of a-bomb survivors) ; Mireko Yoshihara (Hibakusha,Christian);Sil Gun Lee (President of Korean a-bomb survivors council of Hiroshima);Makoto Kitanishi(Emeritus of Hiroshima University); Takeshi Nakashima (second generation of A bomb sufferer); Atsuko Oe (Representative of Save the Iraqi Children of Hiroshima); Norio Suzuki(President of Hiroshima Solidarity Labor Union); Matashichi Ooishi (Bikini Hydrogen bomb test survivor / crew member of the affected The fifth Lucky Dragon fishing boat); Koichirou Suzuki (dairy farmer/ Fukushima resident); Junko Ichikawa(President of Fukushima United Workers' Union)

Office of the appeal committee Address : 14-3-303 Noborimachi Naka-ku Hiroshima-city Postal zip: 730-0016c/

Doro-Chiba Quake Report
May 5, 2011/ issue 18
International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba (National Railway Motive Power Union of Chiba)
2011 May Day Appeal of Education Workers Caucus of National Coordinating Center of Labor Unions
Education Ministry Forces Radiation Exposure on Children
Fight back the murderous policy! Education workers must lead the fight for immediate shutdown of nuke plants
The government at last admitted that the seriousness of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has reached level 7. The situation is worsening day by day.
The myth of “atoms for peace” and “safe and clean energy” has been town down by the actual development.
Neoliberalism was started in Japan in full swing in 1980s by the then Prime Minister Nakasone through privatization of the National Railways. The same Nakasone has taken the lead of the Japanese nuclear policy since 1950s, which was carried on by every administration thereafter, TEPCO, nuclear plant makers, hired mouthpiece scientists, established opposition parties and labor aristocracy; their cozy relationship resulted in the Fukushima disaster.
And we must emphasize that even before the accident, operation of nuclear plants constituted the diabolic
crime, since they cannot generate electricity without
daily and hourly exposure of workers there.
May Day protest in Sendai City—Capital of Afflicted Area
Stop easing of radiation standard to 20mSv/y ! Repeal MEXT’s notification!
April 19, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) notified the Fukushima Prefecture Education Board that the radiation exposure limit in school buildings and playgrounds of elementary and middle schools and kindergartens shall be elevated from 1mSv/year to 20mSv/year. “20mSv/y” has been the standard dose of radiation, which has been applied to an approval of workers’ compensation for leukemia of nuclear plant workers.
The MEXT has also raised the radiation exposure limit for nuclear plant workers from 100mSv/5years (50mSv/y) to 250 mSv/y.
It is a duty in a critical moment for the MEXT to mobilize all necessary measures to protect children who are far more vulnerable to radiation than adults, including evacuation, temporary school closure and so on. However, after unsuccessful attempt to hide the actual level of radiation in schools, they eased the
exposure limit.
The top priority for them is to maintain nuclear power policy at all costs. They use children as guinea pigs. It is a mass murder of children by the government!
April 21, parents from Fukushima questioned official of the MEXT on this point and condemned them: “You are leaving our children in the lurch!” The parents also urged action on the Prefecture and Municipal Board of Educations and school administrations, which had only obeyed the instructions of the MEXT.
The Fukushima Prefecture Teachers Union finally issued the statement against the MEXT’s notification on April 20 and postulated demands to the Prefecture Board.
We should organize our own workplaces and urgently pass resolutions in every union chapter against the MEXT’s notification.
MEXT has been the principal promoter of nuclear plants & nuclear armaments
Japanese nuclear policy has been historically promoted by two lines: one is the group of the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the electric power companies; and another is that of the Science and
1Technology Agency and the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute. In 2001, during the process of reorganization of the central government ministries and agencies, the Ministry of Education and the Science and Technology Agency were consolidated into the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and thus the MEXT got the jurisdiction over research and development of nuclear technology and promotion of nuclear armaments. Since then, MEXT has been promoting investigation of environmental radiation, control of amount of radiation exposure and compensation for damage. Fast breeder “Monju” under the controle of MEXT is not destined for “nuclear recycling” but for production of super weapons-grade plutonium.
The MEXT’s nuclear budget in FY 2011 is 257.1 billion
Also JTU has accepted the nuclear policy
The Japan Teachers’ Union (JTU) issued a statement on the earthquake without any word opposing nuclear power plants whatsoever. The leaders of the JTU has never mentioned huge nuclear budget even when they timidly demanded increase of education budget to reform overcrowded classes. Under their fundamental
Yen—56% of the total nuclear budget, 455.6 billion Yen. The MEXT is the central agency for nuclear policy together with the METI.
Rengo, Japanese Trade Union Confederation, shamelessly playing with blazing lie in President Koga’s overseas propaganda letter: “any density of radioactivity that directly affects the health of the people is not detected, except in the neighboring areas close to the plant. ... as far as Hokkaido in the north and the regions to the west of Tokyo are concerned, there is no affect of the nuclear plant accident. Rather, the damages caused by rumors inside and outside Japan are aggravating and impeding the life of the people and the industries.” Rengo labor lieutenants are profiteering from nuclear plant business together with TEPCO and other electric power companies.
policy of “partnership with MEXT”, the JTU leaders have been collaborating with the government’s nuclear policy.
Speak out and overthrow the misleaders of JTU! Dismantle the MEXT!
Refuse education for promoting nuclear energy!
In 2002, the MEXT established the fund to subsidize the Nuclear Power and Energy Education Support Program and since then they have forcibly mobilized education workers to promote nuclear education and to brainwash kids with the myth of “safe and clean nuke.” The MEXT together with the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy under METI published supplementary textbooks: Exciting Nuclear Land and Nuclear World—Our Bright Future.
The Strategic Energy Plan established last year by the DPJ administration states: “Building 9 new or additional
nuclear plants (with the overall plant capacity utilization rate at about 85%) by 2020 and more than 14 by 2030” and underlines “enhancement of education on energy policy.” The elementary science textbooks for the new school year beginning from this April dramatically escalate the promotion of nuclear power plants under guise of “CO2 reduction.”
Both the nuclear policy and the coercion of national flag and anthem are the strategic national policies. In this epoch of global crisis, both are now collapsing.
Shut down ALL nuclear plants NOW! Make our union militant by promoting 10 million-signature campaign!
People are raging. All the workers are beginning to think out how to live in this critical time. What we need to do now is to create a huge labor movement that can stop nuclear plants. We must overthrow capitalism, which is not capable of surviving without nuclear plants.
Protest actions are spreading all over the world. “Fukushima warns. Shut down all nukes now!”—this is the common battle cry of global working class. Workers of the world, unite and overthrow imperialism that promotes nuclear plants!
Revive militant labor unions! Stop tax increase under the pretext of “reconstruction.” Smash the labor
misleaders who promote so-called “reconstruction movement” that really is a relief for big business! We should create a massive movement against job cuts and nuclear plants!
Promote 10 million-signature campaign initiated by our friends in Hiroshima and Fukushima for immediate shut down of all nukes in our own workplaces, unions, communities!
Organize the nation-wide movement for reinstatement of 1047 fired national railway workers! The Education Workers Caucus of NCCLU will fight in forefront of the struggle.
2
Appeal of Fukushima Teachers’ Union April 20, 2011
Protect Children from Radiation Health Damage
Since the terrible disaster of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the radiation levels remain incredibly high. For the protection of children from health damage by radiation, we have been continuously urging the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Fukushima Prefecture Education Board to set guidelines for security measures. On April 19, a month after the catastrophe, the MEXT finally notified “Tentative Guideline on Use of School Buildings and Playgrounds in Fukushima Prefecture”. On this “guidelines”, however, many anxious voices are raised from the parents and teachers in Fukushima whether their children could really be protected from the radiation effect by the new radiation standard.
The MEXT has set 20mSv/y as the upper limit of radiation levels for school children on April 19. It states that this maximum level of 20mSv/y is based on the recommendation Pub.109 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) that recommended a tentative safety standard within a band of 1 to 20 mSv/y as reference levels in “Post Emergency Situation”. But this standard is set for the general public. It is not for school children. Moreover, it should be noted that the current guideline of regulation is set on 1 mSv/y. The threshold quantity of 20mSv/y is for the planned exclusion zones and also matches the annual radiation exposure dose limit for workers at nuclear plants (the 1990 Recommendation of ICRP). It is apparently very dangerous to adopt this standard to children who are the most vulnerable to radiation. Moreover, when children are exposed to radiation over many years, cumulative radiation will be considerable amount and therefore their risk to cause health damages will be substantial. If we follow the MEXT’s guideline, the lives and health of our children would never be protected.
The MEXT just set the exposure limit at 3.8 μSv/h for children using a school playground. The radiation dose on school playgrounds, however, varies greatly from place to place. The radiation level is comparably high at side ditches and puddles where rainwaters or dusts gather. Children touch soil or sand and run around school playgrounds. They cannot avoid breathing dusts flying in the air. They sometimes fall on the ground and skin their knees. Then radioactive materials would attach to their wounds. Even the air dose rate is less than 3.8 μSv/h, children would receive higher radiation through direct touch with the ground than in the air. There is also a danger of internal exposure.
For the protection of children from health damage by radiation, we strongly demand the rapid control of the nuclear plant accident and the prompt implementation of safety measures to prevent risk to children’s health, instead of repeating, “There is no immediate threat to health”.
TAKENAKA Ryuichi, President of Fukushima Prefecture Teachers’ Union
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110503a1.html
U.S. doctors hit Tokyo radiation limit for kids
Kyodo The Japan Times: Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Physicians for Social Responsibility, a U.S. nonprofit organization of medical experts, has condemned as “unconscionable” the Japanese government's safety standards on radiation levels at elementary and junior high schools in nuclear disaster-stricken Fukushima Prefecture.
3
The PSR statement directly challenges Tokyo's stance that it is safe for schoolchildren to use school playgrounds in the prefecture as long as the dose they are exposed to does not exceed 20 millisieverts over a year.
The PSR view is also in line with that voiced by Toshiso Kosako, who said Friday he would step down as an adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan on the Fukushima nuclear crisis in protest. The University of Tokyo professor urged the government to toughen guidelines on upper limits on radiation levels the education ministry recently announced for elementary school playgrounds in Fukushima.
No-play zone: Students watch as workers remove possibly radioactive soil from the Kaoru Elementary School playground in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture, on Wednesday. KYODO PHOTO
The U.S. group said in a statement released Friday, “Any exposure, including exposure to naturally occurring background radiation, creates an increased risk of cancer.
“Children are much more vulnerable than adults to the effects of radiation, and fetuses are even more vulnerable,” it said.
The medical experts group is part of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.
“(Twenty millisieverts) for children exposes them to a 1 in 200 risk of getting cancer. And if they are exposed to this dose for two years, the risk is 1 in 100. There is no way that this level of exposure can be considered 'safe' for children,” the statement said.
Video: Radioactive Contamination in Schools
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xik6qw_radioactive-contamination-situation_news
25μSv/h
On April 16, 2011 At the gate of Fukushima‐City Daiyon elementary School 25μSv/h
Koriyama‐city in Fukushima started removing topsoil from school playgrounds in its 15 elementary and middle schools as well as 13 nursery schools
Koriyama‐City set its own standards to remove radiation‐contaminated soil.
elementary and middle schools / radiation levels of over 3.8μSv/h nursery schools / radiation levels of over 3.0μSv/h
According to the validation of Koriyama‐City, if 1cm (centimeter) of upper layer is removed from soil, radiation dose will decrease by half.
Koriyama‐City is going to remove 3cm of topsoil from school playground earth. The work will be completed in early May.
4
The Education Minister Takagi: “I think that Koriyama‐City is digging its school playground earth based on its independent judgment, but we will investigate the facts”.
Tachibana Elementary School in Koriyama‐City independently measured its radiation dose and put them on its internet website.
Today’s measured values are as follows: All of the places are measured at 1cm high.
Apr. 4 1st floor classroom 0.25 south companionway 0.29
Apr. 21 0.17 0.28
0.25 0.10 0.08
0.11 0.12
0.29
0.11 0.10 0.11
0.12
at the gate in front of the gym central courtyard playground (the measurement unit is micro Sv/per hour)
The Ministry, however, stopped data publication of Tachibana Elementary School.
In addition to that, the Ministry also banned to conduct soil investigation. Without the government’s permission, any organization is allowed to investigate radiation data.
We are now under authority’s strict control and unable to release any information. We feel like we are in war time. The government release of radiation dose data is totally different from our private research results.
Since the day of her birth, my baby has been exposed to radiation.I am terribly anxious about her future. Radioactive contamination situation is intensifying its severity.
Radioactive materials from grass detected more than 3 times the safety standard in Chiba (April 28, 2011 Jiji Press)
The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry has set allowable radioactive contamination levels for grass.
On April 28, Chiba prefecture announced that the readings for both radioactive iodine and radioactive cesium had been more than three times the safety standard.
Chiba Prefecture demanded cattle farmers to refrain from putting cows out to graze. According to the investigation of Chiba, radioactive iodine at 230 Bq/kg and cesium at 1110 Bq/kg were detected from grass in Ichihara‐City.
In Yachimata‐City, radioactive iodine at 90 Bq/kg and cesium at 350 Bq/kg were detected from grass.
Abolish Nuke Plants May 7 Action Rally and Demonstration
May 7, Saturday from 1 pm at Chiba Central Park
east companionway 2nd floor classroom 2nd floor corridor 3rd floor classroom 3rd floor corridor
1.04 1.27 2.06 3.37
0.80 0.90 1.82 2.52
We have reported the measured radiation data of our school in our website, but the Ministry restricted the publication of measured radiation dose data on internet to only official bodies. Therefore we have to stop releasing our measured data on the website. (the website of Koriyama‐City Tachibana Elementary School)
5
You can find the archive of Doro-Chiba Quake Report: http://dorochibanewsletter.wordpress.com
Let’s relieve earthquake victims through people’s power!
(1) PayPal Account for Donation:
Account Holder: YAMAMOTO Hiroyuki Secretary Treasurer, International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba
(2) Donation through the International Humanities Center (IHC):
Alternatively, donation could be made through the international Humanities Center (IHC) in each following way. 1. Checks can be made out to “People's Earthquake Relief Center / IHC” or “PERC / IHC”, and mailed to the Coalition for Alternatives to Militarism in our Schools (CAMS) box: PO Box 3012, South Pasadena, CA
91031. 2. Donations can also be made on line at: http://ihcenter.org/groups/perc
(3) Bank Account for Donation:
Some or all of the following data 1 to 9 are required to send a remittance to Japan. And if the purpose of remittance is questioned, please reply that remittance is made for relief to the earthquake in Japan through the National Railway Motive Power Union of Chiba (Doro-Chiba).
1. Bank name: The Chiba Bank, Ltd 2. Bank code# in Japan: 0134 3. Branch name: Chuo Branch 4. Branch code# in Japan: 001
5. Branch address: 2-5-1 Chuo, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba 260-0013, Japan 6. Type of address: Ordinary deposit 7. Account number: 4177605
Address of Account: 2-8 Kaname-cho, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba 260-0017, Japan
Phone No. of Account: +81-43-222-7207 8. Account name: Kokutetsu Chiba Doryokusha Rodokumiai 9. SWIFT address: CHBAJPJT 001 4177605
Note: One space is needed between Branch Code# (001) and Account number (4177605).
6

Voice of a Japanese medical worker
Fight against mass unemployment! Stop all nuke plants! For the creation of a new society to live together in unity!
Two months have passed since the March 11 huge quake and nuclear disaster, and bankruptcy of neo-liberal agenda has been fully exposed day by day.
Nearly ten thousand people are still missing and over hundred thousand evacuees are living in the unsafe shelters. For the tsunami-stricken elder people, it is too hard to survive the terrible shock and a large number of them are losing their lives. This is the result of the outsourcing and privatizing of municipalities and public hospitals, which was followed by a forcible drastic reduction of necessary personnel.
Under the pretext of the huge quake, a tremendous number of workers are getting fired not only in the affected areas but everywhere in Japan. While the government propagates “reconstruction”, all workers are put under threat of mass firing.
The governmental plan for “reconstruction” demands as financial source merciless transfer of all burdens upon the shoulders of working class: tax hike, wage cut, reduction of health insurance. “Cheer up Japan!”--an official slogan means nothing but mobilization of working people in a drive to accept all sacrifices as “necessary measures in national emergency of the huge quake”.
Where has the gigantic amount of 120 trillion Yen that the Bank of Japan pumped into money markets immediately after the earthquake? Neo-liberal agenda has been so far developed into a policy of demanding overall sacrifice of the whole society for the survival of the big capital.
May 9, 2011
A long queue of people in front of the Public Employment Agency in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture, from early morning
It is not the whole story. We are faced with terrible nuclear disaster! What happened in Fukushima can be described as the “Third Atomic Bombing” without heat wave and blast as in the case in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The true nature of the “Atom for Peace” is disclosed. Nuclear energy has developed as a powerful weapon of massacre. It is nothing to do with peace. Artificial attempt of nuclear fission should not be allowed for any reason. Nuclear radiation as the result of nuclear fission is beyond human control. Human beings and nukes are incompatible.
Nobody knows when and how radioactive contamination will be brought under control. The government has raised the “permissible doses” of radiation for nuclear plant workers as well as for ordinary inhabitants in quite an arbitrary way. After causing a terrible accident, the agency concerned eased the “permissible doses”! It is nothing but a murder.
What the administration is doing is to arrest workers and students who demonstrated to
1oppose nuclear plants, and to impose censorship of Internet to suppress the voices against nuclear plants. We denounce the idea of putting nuke above human life!
Nuclear plants are run by workers who are constantly exposed to radiation. Labor union leadership of the electric companies has knowingly waged a huge fraudulent propaganda campaign to justify construction of nuclear plants in close co-operation with the companies: “safe and clean nuclear power”.
When labor unions carry out struggle not to allow exposure of workers and to secure the safety in workplaces, nuclear plants will not be able to operate a single day. Through our experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we once resolved no to allow fresh victims of nuke. All nuclear plants that are reproducing victims of exposure day by day should be stopped immediately. Now labor unions need to fulfill
their task.
Genuine reconstruction means essentially to make everybody on earth live in peace and relief as should be. The true way to reconstruction is to refuse enforcement of “national mobilization for reconstruction” and to confront and overcome neo-liberal agenda. Labor unions have come into focus. We fight for a true reconstruction standing up in our own workplaces.
We call on sisters and brothers, workers of the whole world to join our struggle! Stop all nuclear plants immediately! Abolish all nuclear weapons and nuclear plants on the globe!
Crush neo-liberal offensives! Strengthen solidarity of working class to overcome corrupt labor union! Let’s create a new society for all to live their own life, free from capitalist profit!
Two newspaper articles reveal lie of “Atoms for Peace” propaganda
May 10 International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba
Doro-Chiba International Labor Solidarity CommitteeTwo newspaper articles on May 9 (both on the Mainichi) publicly exposed once again that nuclear plants are inseparable from nuclear weapon and nuclear war, or rather, they have been constructed for the purpose of producing nuclear weapons and preparing for nuclear war.
The first article, titled, “Japan and US, negotiating construction of nuclear waste facility in Mongolia”, disclosed the intention of the two governments to build huge disposal facilities for spent nuclear fuel in the Mongolian Republic, which is assumed to have more than 1.5 million tons of uranium ore deposits. Their aim is: monopolizing possession of uranium resource, establishment of monopoly of plutonium through construction of gigantic reprocessing facilities (for the production of nuclear weapon) and finally to burden people of the Mongolian Republic with disposal of nuclear waste, that is an immortal negative heritage of
Abandoned quarters built by the former Soviet Army stand in the Mongolian village of Bayantal, the most likely site for the construction of a nuclear power plant. (Mainichi)
imperialism.
The second article is a report on a “debate” on “Operation Tomodachi” of Japan and US military forces, or rather a dialogue between Kent Calder (Director of the Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asia Studies, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies) and Yamaguchi Noboru (Professor, National Defense Academy of Japan /
2
Lieutenant General, JGSDF (Ret.) / Participative Cabinet Secretary). Both of them spoke quite bluntly over the significance of the Japan-US joint operation, which took place in March, taking opportunity of the huge quake.
Calder: “US and Japan have shared no experience of cooperation in a war till today, different from the case with US-UK and US-South Korea alliances. ... It was, therefore, quite significant that the two nations have enhanced solidarity in emergency”.
Yamaguchi: “We successfully concentrated 100,600 strong Self-Defense Forces on the spot of disaster due to many bases and camps located in Tohoku and its surrounding regions. It has proved the necessity of these installations for the defense of Japan. Beside, the US Marine Corps dispatched abroad for the first time the secret treasure troops, namely the
special combat teams against radioactive contamination and against biochemical attack. It conveyed us the seriousness of US administration”.
We must once again confirm the fact that nuclear plants constitute a first process of nuclear weapon production and therefore are means of war. The demagogical declaration of Barak Obama of “a world without nuclear weapons” must be disclosed and denounced in front of public.
It is urgent to overthrow the recent history, in which nuclear plants have been admitted under the name of “Atom for Peace” and the sacrifice offered by a huge number of nuke workers who are exposed to radioactivity has been concealed. Let’s open up a brilliant future for workers and people to live their own life.
You can find the archive of Doro-Chiba Quake Report: http://dorochibanewsletter.wordpress.com
Let’s relieve earthquake victims through people’s power!
(1) PayPal Account for Donation:
Account Holder: YAMAMOTO Hiroyuki Secretary Treasurer, International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba
(2) Donation through the International Humanities Center (IHC):
Alternatively, donation could be made through the international Humanities Center (IHC) in each following way. 1. Checks can be made out to “People's Earthquake Relief Center / IHC” or “PERC / IHC”, and mailed to the Coalition for Alternatives to Militarism in our Schools (CAMS) box: PO Box 3012, South Pasadena, CA
91031. 2. Donations can also be made on line at: http://ihcenter.org/groups/perc
(3) Bank Account for Donation:
Some or all of the following data 1 to 9 are required to send a remittance to Japan. And if the purpose of remittance is questioned, please reply that remittance is made for relief to the earthquake in Japan through the National Railway Motive Power Union of Chiba (Doro-Chiba).
1. Bank name: The Chiba Bank, Ltd 2. Bank code# in Japan: 0134 3. Branch name: Chuo Branch 4. Branch code# in Japan: 001
5. Branch address: 2-5-1 Chuo, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba 260-0013, Japan 6. Type of address: Ordinary deposit 7. Account number: 4177605
Address of Account: 2-8 Kaname-cho, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba 260-0017, Japan
Phone No. of Account: +81-43-222-7207 8. Account name: Kokutetsu Chiba Doryokusha Rodokumiai 9. SWIFT address: CHBAJPJT 001 4177605
Note: One space is needed between Branch Code# (001) and Account number (4177605).
3

Answers from Magnox?

2011-05-12T07:01:00.000+01:00

We will be pursuing the answer to Kastchiev with various people to check out the best way of getting to the bottom of why Oldbury isn't closed already.

It is so dangerous and the government and its lackies at the NDA are just ripping as much out of the decrepid site before its ultimate closure.

This is a symtom of British political life....no proper infrastrusture, no planning, just do it! attitude

Hi Reg,

In relation to your questions below, hopefully the following will be useful:

Can you please confirm how many people will work on site and for how long when decommissioning commences?

The Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning (EIAD) produced for Oldbury states that during Care and Maintenance Preparations (scheduled for 2014-2027) the number of permenant employees at Oldbury will reduce to 360. During Care and Maintenance (scheduled for 2027 - 95) staffing levels will be significantly lower but will cover necessary security and maintenance requirements. During Final Site Clearance (2096 - 2101) permenant employees are likely to reach 450.

I would like to know the views of Magnox on the letter from Dr. Georgui Kastchiev which recommends that both Oldbury and Wylfa should be closed down to avoid any further risks to the people of Europe.

Magnox do not own the Oldbury site - we are the contractors tasked with running the site on behalf of the NDA and so it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this letter. You may wish to refer this question to the NDA instead, however our independent regulator, the ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation) would not allow the site to operate if they did not feel it was safe to do so.

If you can confirm what time the next SSG will take place I will endeavour to make it and also will keep the members of SANE informed.

The next SSG is scheduled to take place on Wednesday July 20, 2011, commencing at 1pm and will be held at the Oldbury site Conference Centre (the building we met you in on Monday). These meetings are open to the public and we always advertise them through the local media and place a sign at the junction for Oldbury village (the 'triangular' junction between Oldbury Lane and Pickedmoor Lane) stating where and when the next meeting will be held.

I hope this information is useful.

Kind regards,

Zoe

Zoe Young

Communication Officer MCIPR

Rory Walker goes to the High Court today

2011-05-12T06:52:00.000+01:00

Rory goes to the High Court in Leeds today to find out whether the judicial review into justification will progress.

We wish Rory and our community best wishes for today.

If you would like to see a recent interview with Rory please go to our TV channel on youtube, search SANEFILMVIDEOS and Rory Walker.

You could also view any of the suite of 10 plus films that David Price has made over the last two years.

Thanks as always !

Power to the people of Shepperdine ANE..............................

LUSH

2011-05-10T22:31:00.001+01:00

Lush is lovely.......

Horizon Newsletter

2011-05-10T15:35:00.000+01:00

A UK company of E.ON and RWE

COMMUNITY UPDATE

Our plans for new nuclear power at Oldbury

In this issue

Page 2

Links with local businesses

Page 2

Environmental surveys

Page 3

Working with South Gloucestershire Council

Page 4

Meet the team

New drop-in surgeries

This year we are introducing a series of regular drop-in surgeries to give local people the chance to raise questions about our proposals for a new nuclear power station near Oldbury-on- Severn directly with members of the Horizon team.

These events follow on from the successful public drop-in sessions we held last autumn in which we explained circular hybrid cooling towers are our preferred choice for Oldbury (see page 3). The first of our informal drop-ins will take place in June in Oldbury and Thornbury with future events planned for October. These

WELCOME

TO OUR FIFTH UPDATE NEWSLETTER.

Nuclear issues have been high profile recently following the terrible earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the knock-on effects for the power plant at Fukushima. Our sympathies go out to everyone affected.

As we develop our project, both Horizon and our reactor designers are required to look at all conceivable risks, including earthquakes and flooding. A flood risk assessment is one of the first things on our agenda. Although the seismic risks are much smaller in the UK, and the reactors used here are technologically very different, we’re paying close attention to the events in Japan to see what lessons can be learned.

There is an important independent report now being prepared by Dr Mike Weightman, the UK’s Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations. This will help shape our proposals for new power generation at Oldbury.

We believe there is a fundamental need for nuclear power if we’re going to tackle climate change and maintain electricity supplies in the face of growing demand and the closure of older stations. The need for safety is even more fundamental and you have our commitment that this will always be our number one priority.

Horizon’s Safety Case Manager, Ming Ang, explains how safety is an essential part of every stage in the development process for Oldbury in our Meet the Team article on page 4.

James Eaton, Oldbury Project Developer

l This newsletter is being delivered by hand to around 15,000 homes on both sides of the Severn and copies are also distributed to One Stop Shops and libraries throughout South Gloucestershire, the Forest of Dean and Stroud District Council. It can also be downloaded by visiting www.horizonnuclearpower.com/ oldbury.php

Horizon now has a dedicated page on the My Thornbury website, an independent news and information site for people living in and around Thornbury. Go to www.mythornbury.co.uk/horizon

surgeries will be in addition to future public exhibitions we will hold as our project develops.

Dates for the first surgeries are:

June

Oldbury/Memorial Hall:

Tuesday June 14th, from 3.30pm to 8.30pm Thornbury/The Cossham Hall: Thursday June 16th, from 3.30pm to 8.30pm

October

Oldbury/Memorial Hall:

October 17th, from 3.30pm to 8.30pm

Thornbury/The Cossham Hall:

Tuesday 18th October, from 3.30pm to 8.30pm

HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER

Horizon was pleased to be involved in the launch of the recently formed Gloucestershire Nuclear Group. It aims to build a partnership of businesses, educational establishments, politicians, local authorities

and unions to promote continued nuclear investment in Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.

The initiative is also backed by a number of local MPs and county councillors, major businesses and trade union, Prospect, as well as Magnox, the operators of the existing power station at Oldbury.

The Group seeks to build on the successes of similar programmes elsewhere in the country, such as West Cumbria’s Energy Coast and Anglesey’s Energy Island.

It believes there is an unprecedented opportunity to develop the area as a national centre of excellence for the nuclear sector. This would provide a major boost for local businesses and help to drive the development of the skills needed to build and operate the nuclear plants of the future.

At the Group’s launch earlier this spring, Alan Raymant, Horizon’s Chief Operating Officer, said: “We intend to play a positive long-term role in the communities where we operate and very much welcome this initiative.”

Nuclear expertise built up in the region is of great value to the UK. More than 2,500 skilled nuclear workers are already

Partnership to build on

region’s nuclear expertise

From left: Alan Raymant (Horizon Nuclear Power Chief Operating Officer); Mike Graham (Prospect National Secretary); Neil Baldwin (Managing Director, Magnox Ltd); Neil Carmichael (MP for Stroud); Penny Wride (Chair of Berkeley Site Stakeholder Group); Mike Clancy (Prospect Deputy General Secretary); Mark Lesinski (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Delivery Director) at the Gloucestershire Nuclear Group launch.

employed in the area, including at EDF operations at Barnwood and at contractors such as at Babcock International, WS Atkins and Serco. In addition Horizon’s head office at Gloucester Business Park is now home to more than 100 employees in the development of proposals for new nuclear plants at Wylfa and Oldbury.

Mike Graham, National Secretary of union Prospect, said: “Nuclear is key to helping deliver long-term sustainable employment, a strong viable economy and major business benefits for the area.”

It is estimated that a new nuclear plant at Oldbury alone would pump at least £100m a year into the local economy during construction and tens of millions per year during its 60 years of operation.

Horizon wants local businesses to be able to gain maximum benefit from this opportunity. To help develop relationships with local businesses we have launched a dedicated Suppliers’ Portal on our website. Potential suppliers can make contact with our supply team by emailing suppliers@horizonnucleapower.com

Environmental studies focus on estuary

To help us understand the ecology of our site, we are continuing to carry out a series of environmental studies.

Working with bodies such as Natural England, these studies will provide baseline information to help us incorporate mitigation measures, if necessary, into our project design from an early stage.

Over the winter months this work included our continued survey into over- wintering birds along the edge of the Severn Estuary.

The extensive analysis, carried out by environmental specialists, will

provide supporting information for our Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report which will accompany a future planning application.

This work follows some early archaeological surveys carried out last year to further our understanding of the site’s archaeology. In addition, we will shortly be starting our preliminary noise studies. This involves establishing baseline noise levels at various points around the site, so you may see people in the area with monitoring equipment.

A turnstone, one of many residents of the Severn Estuary.

BUILDING LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS

COMMUNITY UPDATE ISSUE 5

Cooling tower preference

Initial visualisations of what hybrid cooling towers could look like from viewpoints around Oldbury can be downloaded from the document library section on our web site at www.horizonnuclearpower.com/oldbury

Visualisations of hybrid cooling towers were first shown at our drop-in sessions last autumn and followed our announcement that circular hybrid towers are our preferred choice for Oldbury.

At up to 70m (230 ft) tall, hybrid cooling

towers are more in keeping with the height of the existing Magnox power station.

Deciding on the type of cooling tower is a key milestone for our Oldbury project and helps to shape the future development of our proposals. Horizon believes that hybrid

Hybrid cooling towers at a distance of 4.4 kilometres.

towers represent a preferable option when a balance of technical, commercial and environmental factors is considered.

The full range of visualisations will also be available to view at our forthcoming informal drop-in surgeries (see page 1).

Talks to local groups

Members of the Horizon Oldbury Development team have given a number of presentations on our proposals to local groups and organisations recently, with further talks scheduled throughout 2011.

The meetings are a great way for us to bring local people up to date and provide an opportunity for members of each group to raise any questions they may have.

As part of our continued programme of local engagement we are keen to schedule more of these individual events and would

like to hear from more local groups or organisations who would be interested in meeting with us.

Please contact us via our free phone number 0800 130 3125 or email us at oldburyenquiries@horizonnuclearpower.com, to tell us about your group and when you would like to meet us.

Framework talks underway

Horizon is working with South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) to develop a Planning Performance Agreement.

Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs) allow developers and Councils to agree how advice on proposed major developments is provided. They are not new and the Government recommends them for large projects, such as the proposed new power station near Oldbury.

A PPA ensures that the Council can maintain its independence and impartiality while fulfilling its duties under the new planning regime. It also allows SGC to recover costs for the additional work that is required in providing advice to Horizon. Project Developer Rebecca Hardy

explains: “Ultimately, we must submit our main planning application to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) or its successor, the body set up to receive and examine applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

“As part of this process SGC will provide advice during the development and will be invited by the IPC to submit a Local Impact Report on our proposals. Because of the scale of the project, it is recognised that they will need to start this work ahead of

our application being made. Having a PPA in place from an early stage ensures a transparent arrangement and allows SCG to carry out the additional work without affecting its normal duties. It also means that we’ll fully understand any key concerns that the council may have while preparing our application.”

TALKING WITH THE COMMUNITY

HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER

Safety work is integral to

securing permissions

In order to build and operate a new nuclear power station at Oldbury, Horizon has to secure a large number of permissions, including a nuclear site license from the Office of Nuclear Regulation and environmental permits from the Environment Agency. This is in addition to a Development Consent Order, which is effectively the planning permission for the scheme.

Safety Case Manager Ming Ang, pictured right, explains what this means for the 10–strong Horizon licensing team, and supporting contractors, based at Horizon’s head office in Gloucester.

Q What is the role of the site licensing team?

Essentially we are responsible for ensuring we have all the necessary licenses, nuclear consents and permits in place to allow the project to go ahead.

This involves satisfying the regulators that we have the people, systems and procedures to safely and effectively design, construct, commission, operate and eventually decommission a nuclear power plant at each of our two sites.

Q What are you currently working on?

One of our key areas of focus at present is the preparation of a Management Prospectus which will describe how we will safely manage a very large construction project and then take the new power station into operation.

We are also working on a site specific safety case that builds on the Generic Design Assessments (GDA) being carried out by the Office of Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.

Q How does your work differ from the Government’s

reactor design assessment?

The GDA studies are focused on evaluating the two possible reactor designs that could be approved for new build in the UK. Our safety case also takes on board the site-specific characteristics, such as geography and geology, which will impact on the way that each plant is designed, constructed and operated.

Q What does this mean at Oldbury?

Because of Oldbury’s location on the Severn Estuary, in developing the safety case we will need to allow for the possible

impact of climate change on rising sea levels over the planned lifetime of the proposed new plant.

We also need to define measures to make sure the plant is safe in the event of tidal and surface water flooding, including an extreme 1 in 10,000 year event which would include the type that occurred along the Severn in the early 1600s.

Flood mitigation measures will also bring potential opportunities to improve surface water management across the surrounding area.

Similarly, we’ll have to demonstrate to the regulator that the design of the foundations for the specific ground conditions at Oldbury are acceptable and that the risk from earthquakes, tsunami, extreme weather events and man-made hazards such as aircraft are accounted for.

Q What effect will recent events in Japan have for

your work?

We will obviously need to await the outcome of the Weightman report, to see what lessons need to be learnt and what, if any, changes would need to be made to the design of nuclear reactors for use in the UK.

Any such changes would be instigated through the nuclear site licensing process. Safety is and remains our number one priority.

If you have any queries or issues you would like to raise with us, please call our usual freephone number 0800 130 3125

or email us at: oldburyenquiries@horizonnuclearpower.com For more information go to www.horizonnuclearpower.com

Printed on recycled paper

MEET THE

TEAM

Top Bulgarian nuclear scientists wants Oldbury closed. Now!!

2011-05-09T19:43:00.000+01:00

To: EU Commissioner for Energy Mr. Günther Oettinger

Dear Mr. Oettinger,

My name is Georgi Kastchiev and I am senior physicist at the Institute of Safety and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied Sciences, Vienna. I have 37 years experience in nuclear power technology – in start-up and operation of NPP, in research, in regulatory activities and in lecturing. From 1997 to 2001 I was a head of Bulgarian Nuclear Safety Authority.

After the severe accident in Fukushima nuclear power plant (NPP) in Japan, “stress tests” were proposed for European NPPs. I am writing to you today to express my concerns that this idea is a false and even counterproductive approach.

Such “stress tests” would be a task for an independent safety authority in the European Union, which could: define requirements and criteria; accomplish additional specific studies; control the tests and review the results with participation of all stakeholders. As such an organization doesn’t exist, it has been proposed that “stress tests” be performed by nuclear operators (on a voluntarily basis) and national regulators.

These are the very organizations and persons who were responsible for the past and present safety evaluations of NPPs. They are therefore in a visible conflict of interest and would be acting as a judge of their own work. It is not realistic to expect that the people, who assured the public over decades that their reactors are safe, could now come to different conclusion.

After the Fukushima accident, serious failures of the Japanese regulatory system have came to light and there has been much criticism of the fact that key managers in the regulatory authorities had close ties to the nuclear companies that they were supposed to oversee. The situation in Europe, however, is not fundamentally different. If you look to the CVs of main regulators here you will – in many cases - find a revolving door between these agencies and the nuclear industry.

Experience shows us numerous cases where nuclear operators and regulators demonstrated a lack of competence and responsibility (Davis-Besse NPP, 2002, US; Paks NPP, 2003, Hungary; Kozloduy NPP, 2006, Bulgaria). In addition, regulators revealed insufficient independence and all parties demonstrated a lack of safety culture. The importance of this fact should not be underestimated. All three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) took place in countries with week regulatory oversight.

As safety requirements differ from one country to the next, I have a problem imagining how European nuclear regulators could express a common position on the safety of each reactor. For example - during discussion of the reactor design for the Belene NPP, the Bulgarian regulator stated that CANDU reactors do not meet Bulgarian safety regulations and they were excluded from the tender. In Romania, however, regulators approved CANDU construction. Another example is the old WWER-440/V-230 Russian reactor. While this reactor design is deemed to meet the present Bulgarian safety regulations, all reactors of the same type were shutdown in Germany in the early 1990s as German nuclear authorities came to the conclusion thatthey do not meet safety regulations and cannot be modernized. A similar case is the WWER-440/V-213, which is assessed as “safe” in a number of European countries, but the only reactor of this type was shutdown in Germany due to the same reason as WWER-440/V230.

Even now, the key nuclear organizations failed to acknowledge the real severity of Fukushima accident. The huge amount of damaged nuclear fuel in reactors and spent fuel pools, radioactive contamination of the see and land, as well as information from Comprehensive Test Band Treaty Organization and French Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute concerning Iodine and Cesium radioactive releases to the environment, clearly show that Fukushima accident has to be classified at Level 7 of INES scale. However, during recent weeks, the IAEA and other nuclear organizations have kept quiet and misled the public concerning the real severity of this accident. In my opinion, this behavior has completely undermined the nuclear community’s credibility and confirmed the public’s perception that the lack of transparency and openness are a typical fixture of the nuclear industry.

The Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA) has already expressed its position on how “stress tests” should be accomplished. For the following reasons, I see grave problems with the approach and methodology proposed by WENRA:

1. I completely disagree with the idea that “stress tests” should rely on existing studies. Existing studies show that reactors are safe, so why spend resources for unneeded exercise. In my opinion, the problem is that we cannot trust the existing studies. The results of present probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) studies are a prime example. These showed that we could expect a low severe accident frequency of about one per 100 000 years per operating reactor. Taking the current fleet of around 440 reactors into account, we could expect such an event perhaps once in several hundred years. Reality has, however, demonstrated a totally different result – with a total of 14500 reactor-years of this fleet, we have already faced 3 severe accidents, which roughly means once every 10 years. What is worse – the last two major accidents resulted in huge radioactive emissions to the environment. In addition, PSA studies look at each unit individually while reality gave us a four-unit concurrent accident in Fukushima NPP. The existing studies also do not consider the circumstances of the Fukushima accident and its implications for other NPPs.

We should also acknowledge that there has been a tendency to ensure that important studies turned out “customer friendly”. There is no doubt that if “stress tests” (based on existing studies about earthquake and Tsunami threats in Japan) had, been carried out for the Fukushima NPP before March 11, their results would have confirmed the safety of the plant.

2. I am of the firm opinion that “stress tests” cannot rely on engineering judgment (EJ). Each of the three major nuclear accidents contained important elements where EJ led operators and regulators astray. For example, EJ concluded that hydrogen would not pose a credible threat to secondary containment integrity at BWR Mark I. Reality, however, provided us with three hydrogen explosions that completely destroyed the reactor buildings serving as a secondary containment for the Fukushima units. EJ led us to the conclusion that severe accidents in spent fuel pools were so unlikely that upgrades to avoid such accidents were unneeded. Reality provided us with multiple spent fuel pool accidents at Fukushima.

3. I completely disagree with the limitation of studies to the operator actions specified in emergency operating procedures (EOP) as proposed by WENRA. Most of what has happened at Fukushima to date far exceeds the EOP domain and lies instead in the domain of severe accident management (SAM).

4. The time frame for assessments (6 months) meant to provide the basis for the performance of “stress tests” are far too short to obtain meaningful results for necessary decisions, i.e. whether plants should remain in operation, or be modified and remain in operation, or be finally shutdown. Unfortunately, WENRA did not have the courage to tell politicians this and instead limited the scope and extent of the stress test analyses so that they will fit into the politically chosen time frame. Consequently, if the WENRA proposal is adopted, we can expect superficial reports from the operators that merely regurgitate the results of studies already performed and will predictably arrive at the conclusion that “Europe is not Japan” and that “our” NPPs show an acceptable safety level.

All this means, that the likely result of the proposed “stress tests” will be the generation of tons of paper, without any real impact on reactor safety.

In order to effectively decrease the risk of a severe nuclear accident in Europe, we need to arrive at clear decisions on where to continue or stop the operation and/or construction of individual nuclear reactors. As a first measure, deterministic technical criteria have to be established that allow us to come to a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Shutdown criteria should include issues such as the following:

Is the reactor lacking a hermetic full pressure containment structure? Is its spent fuel pool lacking such a containment structure? Is this a first generation reactor? Are there significant seismic or other external hazards?

If the answer is “yes,” such reactors should be shutdown (or their construction should be cancelled). In my opinion, this option has to be implemented for:

All reactors of the first generation such as MAGNOX gas-cooled reactors in the UK;

All units without a containment for reactors and spent fuel pools, including WWER-440/V-213 units in Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary;

Old BWRs in Germany, Spain, Sweden and Finland;

The connections of remaining NPPs to the grid have to be strengthened and “stress tests” concerning the reliability of long term onsite power supply and availability of cooling water, plans for evacuation and other emergency response measures to be accomplished.

All remaining units have to be equipped with passive autocatalytic hydrogen recombiners, filtered venting systems, additional diesel generators, movable diesel generators, fire trucks and other equipment used in the Fukushima NPP.

Further required steps are: The construction of reactors at sites with significant seismic risks

and/or without full pressure containment structure must be immediately stopped (Belene 1-2, Cernavoda 3-4, Mochovce 3-4);

The specific risks of terrorists acts for each particular nuclear site should be carefully considered;

European countries should only permit the construction of Generation 4 reactors and ensure that the lessons learned from Fukushima accident are incorporated into their designs.

Even with these measures fully implemented there will still be significant residual risk from some operating reactors outside European Union (old WWER 440/V-230/V-213 and the Bilibino NPP units in Russia, old RBMK in Russia and Ukraine and old BWRs in Switzerland).

I would also like to point out that there are additional safety issues and specific open questions that go beyond the scope of the planned “stress tests”, including:

Intermediate wet spent fuel storages

A number of countries in Europe operate wet storages that are above ground. They are not equipped with containment structure and are not designed to cope with severe accidents. These storages are vulnerable to loss of power and loss of long term She is responsible for nuclear issuesterrorist acts we will face a long lasting nuclear nightmare in Europe;

Civil liability for nuclear damage

According to Merrill Lynch Bank the Fukushima operator will face about 1 trillion Japanese yen ($12,13 billion) in compensation claims if the recovery effort lasts two months. No nuclear operator in Europe maintains this kind of insurance and in some countries it is even less than EUR 100 million. This practice has to be prohibited through political decisions. No nuclear operator should be allowed to operate nuclear facility if it cannot compensate claims up to EUR 10 billion.

Long-term storage of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste

Only Sweden, Finland and partially France have real plans for construction of a deep geological storage for spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in next 10-20 years. Some countries with nuclear programs don’t even have storages for low and intermediate waste. This practice must be prohibited. No nuclear operator should be allowed to operate nuclear facility if it has no real and financially assured plans for long term storage of spent fuel and radioactive waste.

Mr. Oettinger, I hope the EC will begin giving nuclear safety the priority it deserves and halt its practice of giving a “green light” to questionable nuclear projects. In this context, I hope that EC will also reassess its position concerning the construction of specific nuclear projects such as the Belene NPP in Bulgaria, Cernavoda 3-4 in Romania and Mochovce 3-4 in Slovakia.

I am available for discussions and am looking forward to your answer. With best regards, Dr. Georgi Kastchiev April 7, 2011

Todays meeting at Oldbury

2011-05-09T19:39:00.002+01:00

Hi Zoe

It was good to meet you , Alison and Matthew today.

There will be some additional questions that we will be asking over the next week or so.

Thanks for clarifying when the blow down is estimated to start so that people are aware of this and can make their appropriate decisions.

As we shared today,we view this issue from completely different perspectives and we understand your concerns for employment in the area but this power station was due to close in 2008 so this is no revelation to the staff or management on site.

Can you please confirm how many people will work on site and for how long when decommissioning commences?

I would like to know the views of Magnox on the letter from Dr. Georgui Kastchiev which recommends that both Oldbury and Wylfa should be closed down to avoid any further risks to the people of Europe.

If you can confirm what time the next SSG will take place I will endeavour to make it and also will keep the members of SANE informed.

Thanks

Reg

On 9 May 2011, at 14:24, Zoe Young wrote:

Hi Reg,

It was nice to meet yourself and David earlier, I hope the conversation was useful and answered some of the questions you have.

I undertook to provide you with some contact details for our regulators, which are as follows:

Robert MacGregor - Environment Agency
robert.macgregor@environment-agency.gov.uk
01491 828379

Dr Malek Ghannad - Office for Nuclear Regualtion (formerly NII)
malek.ghannad@hse.gsi.gov.uk
0151 951 3484

I have asked the question about exactly when the CO2 release is likely to happen, and the working plan at the moment is around 96 hours after the trip takes place, so provisionally 5pm on Saturday May 14. I must stress that this is only a provisional timing though, and hopefully I can give you firmer details nearer the time.

I hope this is useful,

Kind regards,

Zoe

Zoe Young
Communication Officer MCIPR
Oldbury Power Station
01454 893322
<0B149999.jpg>
www.magnoxsites.co.uk
Follow Magnox North on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MagnoxNorth

Why are the BBC so poorly informed?

2011-05-05T03:00:00.003+01:00

Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat

c/o Manchester City Council, Town Hall, Manchester, M60 3NY, UK Tel: 0161 234 3244 Fax: 0161 274 7397

Chair: Councillor George Regan

Secretary: Sean Morris

BBC Complaints Unit PO Box 1922 Darlington, DL3 OUR

Dear BBC Complaints Unit,

4th May 2011

FALLOUT – THE LEGACY OF CHERNOBYL, BROADCAST ON 26TH APRIL AND 1ST MAY, BBC RADIO 4

I would like to bring to your attention a joint complaint made by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), Scientists for Global Responsibility, Medact, the Nuclear Consulting Group, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Chernobyl Children’s Project and Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline in reference to the content of the above Radio 4 documentary, which was presented by Nick Ross.

I attach below (as Appendix 1) a detailed critique of the programme by the independent consultant on the environment, Dr Ian Fairlie, which all the above mentioned groups fully endorse and support. For your information, Dr Fairlie was a member of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). He has provided, on the request of the groups, several substantive points and genuine concerns about the programme.

All the above mentioned groups were very concerned about the findings of this important documentary, on what was the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, and feel the programme did not adequately provide the required balance expected from the BBC.

I would appreciate if you could bring the comments made by Dr Fairlie to the attention of the programme makers, senior editorial staff on BBC News, the Controller of BBC Radio 4, and the BBC Trust. I would appreciate if you could send a full response to this letter for the attention of the NFLA Secretary, Sean Morris (s.morris4@manchester.gov.uk), who has co-ordinated this response on behalf of the above mentioned groups.

Yours sincerely,

Baillie George Regan, Chair of the UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility Marion Birch, on behalf of Medact Dr Paul Dorfman, on behalf of the Nuclear Consulting Group

Professor David Webb, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Linda Walker MBE, Executive Director of the Chernobyl Children’s Project UK

Victor Mizzi MBE, Executive Director of the Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline

Pete Roche, on behalf of No2Nuclear Power.co.uk

(Agreed and fully endorsed by the above on behalf of their respective groups.)

1May 3, 2011

Dr Ian Fairlie Consultant on Radioactivity in the Environment 115 Riversdale Road LONDON N5 2SU United Kingdom

Fallout: the Legacy of Chernobyl BBC Radio 4 programme broadcast on April 26 and May 1 2011

Comments by Dr IAN FAIRLIE

The above radio programme suffers from five main defects and a number of factual inaccuracies.

The most serious defect is a lack of balance to the point of apparent bias. A balance of views is presented from eastern scientists (i.e. from Belarus and Ukraine) but not from western scientists. According to Mr Ross, the “great majority” of the (western) scientists whom the programme makers spoke to were in favour of nuclear power. The question naturally arises as to why did they not speak to other scientists? To my knowledge, the programme makers could have interviewed at least four distinguished UK professors who would have supplied more rounded views in this area. Two are renowned for having first discovered the large increases in childhood thyroid cancers arising from Chernobyl: not to have approached either of these scientists is an oversight.

The programme started inauspiciously with a chance meeting with the head of UKAEA at London airport. This rather set the tone for much of the rest of the programme: apparently all the UK and US scientists interviewed by Mr Ross had pro-nuclear views and were emphatic that Chernobyl’s radiation effects had been exaggerated. Lacking were more nuanced views from scientists with a less partisan take on these matters.

The programme makers omitted to refer to a recent major study of Chernobyl’s health effects by eastern scientists: Chernobyl - consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment. Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko (Editors). Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Consulting Editor). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 1181, Number 1, November 2009. http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086- 753f44b3bfc1

This lengthy book (347 pages) was mainly written by the former scientific advisor to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov and Russian President Boris Yeltsin. It has sparked much discussion among western scientists: two lengthy and contrasting book reviews of this monograph were recently published in the peer reviewed journal, Radiation Protection Dosimetry.

See: http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/97.extract?sid=f470848d-60c8-4e7f-a64f- c4a40f8a982a and: http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.extract?sid=f470848d-60c8-4e7f-a64f- c4a40f8a982a

Appendix 1

The programme makers would have benefitted immensely from reading these two reviews and the book itself.

The second defect is the mismatch between what interviewed scientists said and the programme’s statements which followed. One example is after a series of statements by eastern scientists of increasing evidence of various cancer types, non-cancer effects such as cardiovascular diseases and increased ill health in general following Chernobyl. Mr Ross immediately dismissed these observations as not being accepted by “western scientists” as if this were the end of the matter. But it isn’t: some western scientists do adopt superior or condescending attitudes when discussing eastern science but these attitudes are ill founded. Many western criticisms of eastern studies are found all too often in western studies as well. For example, Professor Thomas’ criticisms of eastern epidemiology studies are all too common in western studies of nuclear effects as well.

Another example of mismatch occurred after Professor Cardis’ statement that there was “mounting epidemiological evidence of small radiation risks even at low doses”. Mr Ross then made a number of assertions to the opposite effect. He stated without substantiation that: “... (radiation) risks for individuals were vanishingly small...” and were “far lower than those from ordinary smog”. In fact, the risks of inhaling radioactive isotopes such as Cs- 137 and Pu-239 would be much greater than inhaling the smoke-fog (smog) particles experienced in London during the 1950s, assuming similar air concentrations for both.

There is a spectrum of views about how dangerous low levels of radiation are, as explained by Dr Cardis. Although Mr Ross is entitled to his own personal view, he should have acknowledged these were at one extreme of the spectrum and that many distinguished radiation scientists in the UK and US would disagree with his view. These would include the 14 eminent UK and US radiation biologists and epidemiologists who authored a famous article in 2003 stating that the existing model for estimating radiation risks could be underestimating them.

See: Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, Lubing JH, Preston DL, Preston JR, Puskin JS, Ron E, Sachs RK, Samet JM, Setlow RB and Zaider M (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. (2003) PNAS Nov 25, 2003, vol. 100 no. 24. pp 13761–13766.

Third is the programme’s failure to appreciate important distinctions in radiation risks, including those between deterministic and stochastic effects and between internal and external radiation. The risks from internal exposures to radiation from ingested or inhaled radionuclides at Chernobyl are quite different from the risks of external radiation exposures, a point which Mr Ross fails to grasp. This is important because the majority of the doses to people from Chernobyl’s plume were (and are) from internal radiation. One would have also liked to have heard some balancing discussion of the important role of unreliable dose estimates; of the recent German Government’s ‘KiKK’ evidence of large risks near nuclear power stations in Germany; and of the hazards of radiation’s new non- targeted effects.

Fourth is the programme’s downplaying of radiation risks by stating that findings of increased cancer incidences by the 2005 WHO/IAEA report are mere “predictions”, as if they were not real. However all official estimates of increased cancer rates are estimates. This is because radiation’s effects are stochastic, because cancers occur after lengthy latency periods and because cancers due to radiation cannot be distinguished from ordinary cancers. Therefore we can only estimate and not state precisely how many cancer deaths will occur after radiation exposures. Nevertheless, a large body of scientific

evidence makes it abundantly clear that radiation exposures - even at low doses - will result in increased incidences of cancer.

This attempted undermining of the scientific evidence on radiation effects is similar to the statements in the 1970s and 1980s by tobacco companies that lung cancer deaths were only “predictions” and not real. Nowadays, estimates and predictions for cancers arising from smoking are accepted without demur. In fact, the scientific evidence for radiation risks is more robust than that for tobacco risks.

Finally, there is the lack of evidence for the programme’s main point that fear of radiation and distrust of official statements are more damaging than radiation risks themselves. Essentially, this argument depends on the contentions that radiation risks are very low and that radiation did not cause the array of observed ill health effects in Belarus and Ukraine. Contrary to Mr Ross’ statements, neither contention is established from the evidence presented in the programme. For example, the eastern scientists interviewed failed to support either of these contentions, and the selected western scientists simply refused to accept the eastern scientists’ evidence - with little explanation for their refusal.

The truth of the matter is that, given the lack of a major health study, we are unlikely to know the precise numbers of cancers and other health effects resulting from Chernobyl. But it is clear - even from official studies - that many thousands of people have died and will die in the future from exposures to Chernobyl’s radioactivity. To deny this fact and to allege that the main problem is fear of radiation is regrettable. If nothing more, it reveals a lack of humanity towards the continuing plight of many people in Belarus and Ukraine who continue to be exposed to Chernobyl’s contamination.

Below is a list of inaccuracies or misleading statements in the programme. Ian Fairlie

Radio 4 programme stated

Comment

Mr Ross states “Chernobyl accident contaminated 75,000 square miles of Europe” (i.e. ~200,000 sq km)

According to the EU, the Chernobyl plume in fact contaminated 3,800,000 sq km of Europe. See table 3.1 of the independent TORCH report at www.chernobylreport.org

Dr Thomas alleges that “we weren’t exposed to radiation from Chernobyl”

Yes, we were. See the map of exposures throughout Europe in figure 3.2 of the TORCH report. Chernobyl fallout resulted in restrictions on the movement of contaminated lambs in thousands of UK farms. Today, these restrictions remain on 334 farms, particularly in Wales.

Mr Ross states the 2005 IAEA/WHO report said 4000 deaths from Chernobyl

It was the IAEA Press Release which incorrectly stated 4,000 deaths. The full IAEA/WHO report stated nearly 9,000 deaths: this incorrect citation was later acknowledged by WHO.

Sir David King alleges that the radiation dose from one transatlantic flight (~0.05 mSv) would be greater than the doses received from walking around near Fukushima

This statement is incorrect and inconsistent with the following: 6,000 sq km near Fukushima is a no entry area for all civilians which is enforced by military troops: 200,000 people have been evacuated from near Fukushima: the maximum allowed dose for workers has been increased from 50 mSv to 250 mSv per year: several workers have received life-threatening doses of radiation: the radiation limit for children in schools

and playgrounds in Fukushima prefecture has been increased from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year. The UK Government has evacuated all UK nationals from Tokyo - 200 km from Fukushima

Mr Ross refers to 25 years as a long time for radiation effects (“even after 25 years”)

Latency periods for solid cancers can extend over many decades. For example, significant numbers of cancers are still arising among the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs, who were exposed 65 years ago.

Dr LiVolsi states “No expert opinion finds increases in any other sort of cancer”

Ivanov et al (1995) and others have reported increased incidences of several solid cancers. The 2005 WHO/IAEA report pointed to increased breast cancers among exposed women under 45 years old at the time of the disaster.

Professor Tuttle states “we haven’t seen a big increase in other cancers” (ie apart from thyroid cancer)

As stated above, there are small, but statistically significant, increases in other cancers.

Mr Ross states “the Chernobyl (exclusion zone) is now a wildlife park”

This is due to the exclusion of man and agriculture from the zone and the resulting influx of new species, and not to the absence of radiation effects implied by the programme. The programme makers appear unaware of the studies by Professor Mousseau and others on genetic mutations in birds, small mammals and plants within the zone.

Mr Ross states “...like a broken steam pipe ...as at Fukushima...”

Not to mention three major explosions, partial meltdowns, burning of spent nuclear fuel, and extensive releases of radioactive materials.

SANE Advert to appear in Bristol Evening Post on Friday

2011-05-04T21:42:00.001+01:00

The first advert we have ever placed will feature in this Fridays Bristol Evening Post and we can't wait for you our readership to see it.

We could sneak it out to you........but we think it is better for BEP to get the additional money on Friday and for you to fully appreciate the message.

As intelligent people, that understand the implications of nukes on past generations, our generations and human kind for one hundred thousand years to come, we know you can wait another 48 hours.

We thank you for your support and are proud of our regular readers of one of the most successful anti-nuclear blogs in this country

We as the inner core of SANE will always be here for you!

Will we get a reply about the depressurisation due next week?

2011-05-03T22:20:00.000+01:00

We sent this message to Magnox today and are now awaiting their reply.

zoe.young@magnoxnorthsites.com MAgnox Contact

Dear Zoe
>
> I am a resident of Shepperdine Road in Oldbury Naite and have been informed by somebody who attended the recent SG meeting that there is a depressurisation/ outage due for one of the reactors on the 10th May.
>
> Can you confirm that this is the case and if so what precautions we should take to avoid any radioactive contamination.
>
> I speedy reply is sought so that we can plan our whereabouts on Tuesday, in Oldbury or going out of town.
>
> Cheers

No reply as of yet..........nothing new from our friends at Magnox and NDA.