Memorandum submitted by Radiation Free
Lakeland
Radiation Free Lakeland was formed in November
2008 following Cumbria County Council's "expression of interest"
in the geological disposal of nuclear waste. Supporters are people
from all walks of life in Cumbria and further afield whose aims
are: (a) to ensure the risks from nuclear waste are minimized
and (b) that no more nuclear waste is produced.
The DECC exhibition and presentation which precedes
the "Site Consultation" public discussions reiterate
deliberately misleading statements. These statements include assertions
that nuclear power is:
— Carbon free /Climate friendly.
— Safe for the Environment.
1. Carbon Free/Climate Friendly ...?
1.1 Every nuclear power plant requires a
dedicated back up of energy—in fact they need an "over
supply" of energy to prevent catastrophe during operation
and waste management. In the case of Sellafield's waste management
the Fellside CHP plant does this job. Following a Freedom of Information
request it was revealed that the amount of gas bought in to ensure
"security of supply" to Sellafield last year was £30
million (FOI NDA REPLY 9781940). Any gas left over is sold on
to the National Grid. Sellafield stopped producing electricity
in 2003. The CO2 emissions from Fellside since then are in excess
of three million tonnes. When asked, the NDA could give no reply
as to how a secure energy supply to new build would be met or
how Sellafield's own energy requirement would be met post fossil
fuel.
1.2 The Nuclear Fuel cycle produces greenhouse
gases thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. Following
a Freedom of Information request from Radiation Free Lakeland
(FOI—NDA 10689349) it has come to light that Sellafield
(no longer producing electricity) quadrupled its emissions of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from the period 2007 to 2008. HFC's
are hundreds and can be thousands of times more powerful than
carbon dioxide. The reporting threshold is 100kg but Sellafield
produced over four times this amount in 2008 alone.
1.3 Apart from hydrofluorocarbons and other
potent greenhouse gas emissions, the nuclear cycle absolutely
relies on the production of chemicals such as concentrated nitric
acid in large quantities. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is produced by nitric
acid production and is not only 310 times more powerful than CO2
but it lasts over 100 years in the troposphere. According to the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Sellafield is home to the most
dangerous concoction of tens of millions of gallons of nitric
acid (1086.7 m3) in High Level Liquid Waste tanks holding "nitric
acid solution containing fission products, some actinides and
some solids". Fossil fuel and the internal combustion engine
has done much to trash the environment but fossil fuel is well
and truly trumped by nuclear power at the top of the polluting
industrial food chain and reliant on all other polluters for its
existence.
2. Safe for the Environment ...?
2.1 Following Freedom of Information requests
from Radiation Free Lakeland the Nuclear Decommission Authority
have revealed that:
"The Abstraction license issued by the Environment
Agency to the NDA allows abstraction of a total of 6,637,307 m3
of water per annum, but the maximum abstraction in any 24 hour
period must not exceed 18,184m3"
This equates to over four million gallons abstracted
from Wastwater every day, essential to cool the nuclear waste
(and provide nuclear workers and equipment with power showers
etc). More water is abstracted from the Calder and Ehen with discharges
to these rivers. While the Lake District is known for its freshwater
resources—this kind of relentless use and abuse is unsustainable
especially when the resource is fresh water—the most precious
and essential prerequisite for life. Wastwater was formed a relatively
short time ago—10,000 years—nuclear waste remains
dangerously "hot" for substantially longer. When asked,
the NDA could give no indication of how new build water supplies
would be met. Seawater is too corrosive for many nuclear processes.
2.2 With regard to nuclear radiation and
wildlife the nuclear guru James Lovelock has said, "If you
wanted to preserve the biodiversity of rainforest, drop pockets
of nuclear waste into it to keep the developers out. The lifespan
of the wild things might be shortened a bit, but the animals wouldn't
know, or care. Natural selection would take care of the mutations".
For "rainforest" substitute "Cumbria". James
Lovelock's blasé prediction is backed up by evidence: "Hesse-Honegger
discovered a shocking degree of deformation in bugs from fallout
areas in Sweden. From 1986 until 2007, she systematically examined
the morphological appearance of various types of true bugs around
the world. She collected more than 16,000 Heteroptera, examined
them in detail, identified different types of malformations and
produced over 300 detailed illustrations. In areas around nuclear
power plants and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Switzerland
(Aargau), France (La Hague), and Germany (Gundremmingen), for
example, severe disturbances and malformations were found in true
bugs and other insects" Courtesy of Verlag Helvetica Chimica
Acta (Chemistry & Biodiversity 2008, Vol 5, issue 4, p 499-539)
3. Safe for Human Health ...?
3.1 The German company RWE is tendering
for nuclear build here in Cumbria while effectively outlawed from
new build in Germany largely as a result of health concerns In
Germany. The German people object strongly to proposals to extend
the life of existing plants—new build in Germany is off
the agenda. This is chiefly as a result of the KIKK studies, showing
a direct link between proximity to nuclear installations and cancer.
As Dr Ian Fairlie reports in the New Scientist article
26 April 2008 "the KiKK studies (a German acronym for Childhood
Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results
were published this year in the International Journal of Cancer
(vol 122, p 721) and the European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p
275). These found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger
association with nuclear installations than all previous reports.
The main findings were a 60% increase in solid cancers and a 117%
increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16
large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. The most
striking finding was that those who developed cancer lived closer
to nuclear power plants than randomly selected controls. Children
living within five kilometres of the plants were more than twice
as likely to contract cancer as those living further away, a finding
that has been accepted by the German government".
3.2 The Radiation Linked Diseases Compensation
Scheme based at Sellafield is there to compensate nuclear workers,
but as the KIKK studies show the surrounding population up to
50k is also adversely affected by nuclear installations. While
routine emissions are damaging to human health—the prospect
of a serious accident would be catastrophic. In the same month
that the Norwegians were told by the industry that a hypothetical
"accident" such as a loss of cooling water to the waste
tanks "could not happen"—the hypothetical accident
became a reality. On 1 April 2009 there was a loss of cooling
water to the High Level Waste tanks—the problem was hours
away from being catastrophic. This loss of coolant to HLW tanks
is designated as the "Reference Accident" (worst credible
accident) for Sellafield's Emergency Plans. The worst-case scenario
would be public evacuation from Glasgow to Liverpool (perhaps
permanent). The Norwegian report concluded that if just 1% of
the tanks' inventory was accidentally released, the radioactive
fallout in Norway would be five times greater in the areas worst
affected by the Chernobyl accident. If 10% of the tanks' contents
were released, the fallout would be fifty times the country's
maximum post-Chernobyl experience.
4. Economic ...?
4.1 Others will speak of the tens of billions
required for new build and the hundreds of billions required for
decommissioning. Radiation Free Lakeland would like to highlight
just some of the hidden economic costs of nuclear. For example
a staggering £30 million every year on gas to Sellafield.
Sellafield has the obscene luxury of paying nothing—zilch—for
its in excess of 4 million gallons of fresh water a day—around
the same amount of water as three Cumbrian towns would use. In
Cumbria, individual household water bills are rising year on year.
4.2 For the last 10 years there has been
an unprecedented increase in taxpayers money filtering through
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to many essential services
in Cumbria such as Citizens Advice, Schools and Hospitals. The
NDA claims that its considerable largesse running into tens of
millions is helping communities suffering from the economic shock
of nuclear closure. With the sale of "NDA" land (land
acquired with public funds) for potential new build this largesse
has instead become a "slush fund" used with the rather
abusive aim of grooming communities into passive acceptance of
nuclear. For example, the NDA has released information, in response
to a Freedom of Information request showing that £34 million
has been given to hospitals, colleges, and wildlife and heritage
groups since 2005. Cumbria County Council has a staffer sponsored
by the NDA, as does Made in Cumbria, established to help small
businesses involved in the food and craft sectors.
4.3 Money has been given to a lifeboat appeal,
footpaths, and a harbour wall scheme amongst other things. The
Citizens Advice Bureau in Copeland has received almost £80,000.
In addition to the £34 million, the NDA will be "investing"
£10 million over three years in the University of Cumbria.
According to The Guardian, the NDA is spending taxpayers'
money on "social" projects "as if Christmas has
come early".
Cumbrians are being "bought off" with
their own money. Apart from the University of Cumbria, money is
going to other organisations which should be properly funded by
central government—Cumbria's nine cottage hospitals received
£18 million. Money the NDA and other nuclear companies are
disbursing in Cumbria is going to organisations that Cumbrians
are relying on to be impartial and vocal watchdogs on nuclear
issues. Cumbria Wildlife Trust's work on the Biodiversity Action
Plan was part funded by Sellafield Ltd. Friends of the Lake District
and the Lake District National Park Authority both work in partnership
with Cumbria Vision on various projects such as the Lake District
World Heritage Project, and the Cumbrian Biodiversity Action Plan.
Cumbria Vision is the main economic development agency in the
County, and is promoting the West Cumbria Energy Coast Masterplan,
which received £250,000 from the NDA.
5. Sustainable ...?
5.1 The most widely accepted definition
of sustainability can be traced to a 1987 UN conference. It defined
sustainable developments as those that "meet present needs
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs" (WECD, 1987). The Golden Rule of Sustainability
is "do unto future generations as you would have them do
unto you". "Sustainable means using methods, systems
and materials that won't deplete resources or harm natural cycles"
(Rosenbaum, 1993).
5.2 With these principles of sustainability
in mind the question should be posed:
Is nuclear power the biggest threat to Cumbria's
future food security?
— Windscale Fire—Contaminated Lakeland
Food—Systematically Destroyed.
— Chernobyl—over 20 years ago—353
British farms including in Cumbria are still under Restrictions.
"New evidence of an association between
increased cancers and proximity to nuclear facilities raises difficult
questions. Should pregnant women and young children be advised
to move away from them? Should local residents eat vegetables
from their gardens? And, crucially, shouldn't those governments
around the world who are planning to build more reactors think
again?"
2008 New Scientist—Dr Ian Fairlie—Consultant
on radiation in the environment
6. Home grown
6.1 New nuclear would "boost energy security"
Regarding "energy security," the known
UK resource of uranium is on Orkney where the Orcadians successfully
won a battle in the 1970s to keep their uranium in the ground.
A direct consequence of nuclear fanaticism in Britain is having
devastating effects worldwide. From the Grand Canyon to Lapland
to Australia, indigenous communities around the world are fighting
thousands of uranium mining claims.
Even if nuclear was everything that DECC falsely
claim—that still would not justify new build in Cumbria
or elsewhere in the UK. Energy needs can be met without the nuclear
drain on resources.
7. Conclusions
7.1 People could be forgiven for assuming
that the Department of Energy and Climate Change was created with
the cynical remit to push for new nuclear build and "geological
disposal" at ANY cost—of health, safety, or trashing
of the climate and environment. DECC have asked that people/organisations
do not publish their responses to the draft Nuclear National Policy
Statement until the select committee has "appraised them".
Is this to ensure that the Site Selection "Consultations"—some
of which have already taken place, can happen without the hindrance
of dissenting voices being heard? At the Site Selection "Consultation"
Meetings the DECC exhibition and officials are blandly reiterating
all the nuclear fantasies contained in the draft (dodgy dossier)
Nuclear National Policy Statement.
7.2 Our response is NO—Radiation Free
Lakeland opposes in the strongest possible terms the draft Nuclear
National Policy Statement. Cumbrians should be assured of infrastructure
such as schools and hospitals without being bribed into "geological
disposal" and new nuclear build in the vicinity of the worlds
most ferociously radioactive stockpiles of nuclear waste. It seems
that the process of "consultation" is Decide, Announce
and Defend the DECC's remit of promoting nuclear power.
January 2010
| 
