Memorandum submitted by Stop Hinkley
INTRODUCTION
Stop Hinkley is a local group campaigning against
the operations and potential expansion at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
We support energy conservation and renewable energy as means to
produce energy and reduce the need for up to one third of energy
production in the first place. We are concerned about the risks
associated with the industry, both immediate and to future generations,
and over safety—to potentially tens of thousands of people
and also the health of individuals exposed to the routine daily
radioactive discharges from nuclear plants.
OPPOSITION TO
WIND-FARMS
In the Government Energy Review last year, the
nuclear option was left open, apparently at the behest of Tony
Blair and in the face of Cabinet opposition, as most of the nation
was against the idea, tested by various opinion polls. This option
is to be reviewed in 2006 and will hinge on the success of renewable
energy. Should wind-power fail, in other words, then nuclear is
back on the agenda. This unfortunate dynamic sets renewables as
an obstacle to more nuclear power and therefore a target for pro-nuclear
lobbyists.
This may be one motive for some vociferous local
and national protest groups. Related to a proposed wind-farm at
Hinkley Point in West Somerset, key anti-wind campaigners have
worked at the Hinkley complex, according to a regional newspaper.
NUCLEAR NEW-GENERATION
SAFETY
However advocates of the nuclear technology
should recognise that the next generation of nuclear reactors
will not be "safer, cleaner and greener" than the current
30 and 40 year old reactors. The Westinghouse AP1000 design vaunted
by BNFL, and suggested in the inquiry brief, has had its safety
valves, pipes and cables stripped out by 70% to reduce building
costs. It may never receive a UK operating licence due to having
no secondary containment to protect the public in the event of
an accident. Safety systems considered essential to Sizewell "B"
have been replaced by a "passive safety" feature that
would simply spill a huge tank of water onto the overheating reactor,
while operators try to get it under control. Concreting has been
reduced by 65% on the Sizewell "B" plant also a Westinghouse,
to save costs, rather than increased as a vital defence against
terrorism. The Finnish Government seemingly excluded this design
due to their concerns about its vulnerability. One nuclear consultant
has said a large airliner could slice through the reactor like
cutting the top off an egg.
CARBON
The supposed carbon-free quality of nuclear
power is not entirely a convincing argument as it actually produces
four times as much CO2 as wind-power per kilowatt generated.
The German EKO Institute found a typical 1,250 megawatt nuclear
power station produces up to 1,300 million tonnes of the greenhouse
gas in its lifetime, considering all its processes from uranium
mining, plant building, generation, decommissioning to the long-term,
unresolved problem of dealing with nuclear waste.
COSTS
For those concerned about the public costs of
wind-power, which although inevitable in a fledgling industry
will be relatively minor, the financial track record of the nuclear
industry is truly appalling. British Energy's bankruptcy was only
avoided by much help from the national Treasury, thousands of
hours work at the DTI and costs for fuel and (useless and polluting)
reprocessing externalised onto publicly owned, loss-making BNFL.
Last year rows were a daily feature between disenfranchised share-holders
and BE bosses. Over the decades nuclear has hoovered up much-needed
research money for renewables, especially locally popular tidal-power.
It would do so again given a chance, thus ruining the future for
cleaner technologies. Nuclear decommissioning of plant is currently
priced at £55 billion and will probably rise further given
the industry's track-record. Dealing with nuclear waste still
has no final cost as, even after 50 years, there is no decided
route for dealing with this toxic legacy which has half-lives
with five-figure numbers.
CURRENT SAFETY
IN THE
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
In July last year the Environment Agency lambasted
the industry's safety and pollution standards with over forty
indictments against British Energy. Hinkley "B", our
local surviving nuclear power station, suffered countless emergency
shut-downs in 2003 forcing its bosses to admit needing to invest
millions into improving its reliability and reducing human errors.
Hinkley "B" owners, British Energy have acknowledged
the existence of cracks in the reactor core graphite which contains
and allows the cooling of nuclear fuel rods. A consultant has
suggested continuing to run reactors with damaged reactor cores
could lead to fuel fires which could escalate, burning for two
or three days and contaminating thousands of people. Nontheless
BE are planning to extend the lives of their ageing reactors as
shown in the Chairman's report last week. But last December their
report to shareholders suggested they may need to shut reactors
early due to internal damage. The industry's concern for profit
may be eroding their judgement over safety margins.
HEALTH EFFECTS
OF RADIATION
Perhaps the most worrying aspect is the continued
wall of secrecy surrounding the industry. A committee examining
cancer risks from radiation was gagged by Government lawyers (Sunday
Times 1 August 2004). So the committee's report, warning of
greatly increased risks to those living near nuclear power stations,
was watered down. Even so, the Committee Examining Radiological
Risks from Internal Emmitters (CERRIE) still said there was an
error in current health risk calculations "of at least one
order of magnitude". Professor Dudley Goodhead, leading the
committee said chillingly that all decision-makers should take
note, particularly where children in affected local populations
could be concerned.
A more recent COMARE report (Committee on Medical
Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) suggested that living
within 25 kilometres of nuclear power stations proved no threat
to public health. But the report used a crude method circling
the plants to a bigger distance than one would expect to find
health effects from air and sea-borne radioactive particles, which
also encompassed large populations. The net effect was to swamp
out any significant figures in blighted towns downwind and downstream
from the plants, rendering its conclusions meaningless.
Our own sponsored research has shown an increased
rate of breast cancer, both mortality and incidence, in the nearest
large town to Hinkley Point, Burnham-on-Sea. Mortality was double
according to Office of National Statistics figures examined by
Dr Chris Busby of Green Audit over a five year period. South West
Cancer Intelligence Service figures showed breast cancer registrations
were 21% higher than expected over a 13 year period to 2002. See
www.llrc.org for details.
CONCLUSION
I recommend we aim for safer, cleaner and greener
technology with wind-farms, energy conservation and other renewables
and consign the nuclear industry to history.
21 September 2005
| 
