Emissions Performance Standards

Memorandum submitted by Dr Rachel Western (EPS 29)

Dr Western is the Nuclear Researcher for Friends of the Earth groups in Cumbria and also a member of ‘Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates’.

Her academic background is in the science and policy issues associated with nuclear waste management; and she has worked for the nuclear waste agency (Nirex), and also for Friends of the Earth (HQ).


This paper focuses on the imperative requirement of avoiding radionuclide creation in the programme to avoid carbon emissions.

Radionuclides are created when uranium is used to produce nuclear energy. These radionuclides present a threat to ‘DNA’- the blue-print for life.

However, predicting the degree of harm that would be caused by the creation of such radionuclides is extremely problematic.

The majority of text is contained in the Appendix, which provides the evidence base for the contention that the prediction of harm due to radionuclides is extremely problematic.

In addition to the discussion of radionuclide harm, brief reference is also made to the KPMG report that concluded that Subsidies would be required if nuclear power stations were to be built. This conclusion must be compared to Government policy  which states that nuclear power stations should not be built if they require subsidy.


Response to Questions

(1) .What are the factors that ought to be considered in setting the level for an Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) and what would be an appropriate level for the UK? Should the level be changed over time?

(A) The level should not be set such that the creation of radionuclides is required.

(2) What benefit would an EPS bring beyond the emissions reductions already set to take place under the EU ETS?

(A) Extreme care should be taken to avoid dis-benefits

(4) Could the introduction of an EPS pose any risks to the UK’s long-term agendas on energy security and climate change?

(A) If it was decided to meet Carbon Targets through the introduction of nuclear power, this would be likely to create a false sense of security

Professor Andrew Blowers of the Open University, and former member of the UK government’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has commented:

"[Nuclear power] would provide the illusion of a solution to the problems of global warming and energy security which required no fundamental changes in production or consumption. It is this business-as-usual aspect of nuclear that is its most insidious characteristic. - The danger is that by focusing on nuclear we refrain from recognizing the scale of the challenge we face and shirk our responsibility for dealing with it". 1

(5) What is the likely impact of an EPS on domestic energy prices?

(A) In August 2010 it was reported that:

"all the intellectual spare capacity in the government is focused on the deficit and the budget cuts, and there is very little capacity left to look at other political priorities" 2

It was reported that this was having a particularly severe impact on DECC (the Department of Energy and Climate Change).

In July 2010, the Telegraph reported that: "KPMG says nuclear power ‘won’t happen’" 3 The article concerned a study by KPMG for RWE npower that states that new reactors will not be built if the Government maintains its commitment not to provide taxpayer support for new reactors . The study says it is still uneconomic for utility companies to invest the billions of pounds required in new reactors under the current financial framework. 4

It may be seen that if it were decided to meet Carbon Targets through the introduction of nuclear power, this could have very severe impacts on energy prices


The Problematic Nature of

Predicting Harm due to


In September 2001, at the start of the:‘Managing Radioactive Waste Safely’ (MRWS) programme the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher stated: 1

"The legacy of a wrong decision could be catastrophic."

Technical Terms

There are about ninety different chemical elements (for example Hydrogen element ‘No 1’ to Uranium element ‘No 92’)

Lumps of these elements may be broken down and broken down and broken down until an object about 10 –8 centimetres big is reached that cannot be broken down any further in the same way. Breaking this object down any more would produce fragments that no longer shared the properties of the element.

The name for the smallest object that still retains the properties of the chemical element is an ‘atom’.

The number of the chemical element (see above) refers to the number of positive lumps (or ‘protons’ ) at the centre (or ‘nucleus’) of the atom.

The centre of the atom also contains neutral particles ( or ‘neutrons’).

The centre (‘nucleus’) of an atom may be unstable – due to the ‘wrong’ balance of positive and neutral particles.

Such unstable centres (or ‘nuclei’) are known as


In the process of becoming stable radionuclides release particles and / or energy. The particles and energy released are able to damage DNA ( deoxyribonucleic acid.)

DNA is the ‘blue-print’ for life. If it is damaged, cancer (either fatal or non-fatal); or alternatively birth defects may result

The process of becoming stable through the release of particles and energy is known as ‘decay’.

The term ‘half-life’ refers to the time that it takes for 50% of the original quantity of a given radionuclide to break down

What is a "Sievert" ?

The harm caused by exposure to radionuclides is described in terms of:

the energy ( per unit weight ) of the exposure

It can be thought of in terms of the overall ‘punch’ associated with the radionuclide bombardment.

one joule 1 of ‘harm’ to one kilogram is called one ‘Sievert’

Nuclear Reactors and the Creation of Radionuclides

In a nuclear reactor uranium is pounded by small particles called ‘neutrons’ and as a result a vast number of ‘radionuclides’ are formed.

When uranium (chemical element ‘92’ ) is exposed to neutrons in a reactor there are three different processes that result in the creation of radionuclides.

These are:

the uranium 1 , 2 may:

· absorb a neutron and turn into a heavier element such as neptunium (element ‘93’) or plutonium (element ‘94’). These very heavy elements are known as ‘actinides’.

· split into two separate atoms. The products of this split form two smaller atoms from the larger uranium. These smaller atoms are known as ‘fission products’.3 They are particularly radioactive.

In addition, the reactor materials themselves

· may take up neutrons. The radionuclides formed by this process are known as ‘activation products’. 4

It may therefore be seen that nuclear waste production is an intrinsic part of the usage of nuclear fuel to produce electricity.

Radionuclides and Damage to DNA

The reason that radionuclides are harmful is that they are unstable and as they breakdown (or ‘decay’) towards a form that is stable they release particles and energy that can cause severe damage to ‘DNA’ (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is the genetic ‘blueprint’ for life and a particular concern associated with DNA damage is that it can result in cancer.

For example, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (now part of the Health Protection Agency, the ‘HPA’) has stated:

"a single radiation track (the lowest dose and dose rate possible) traversing the nucleus of an appropriate target cell has a finite probability, albeit very low, of generating the specific damage to DNA that results in a tumour initiating mutation." 1

Exposure to radiation can be harmful from outside the body 2 or from inside 3.

Problems in Predicting harm due to Radionuclides

There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to predict to predict the harm that would arise due to the radionuclides that would be created by ‘new-build’ reactors. There is of course the obvious reason that many of the radionuclides will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years into the future; and so clearly making predictions on the necessary timescales would be extremely problematic.

However, another reason - which does not appear to have registered sufficiently strongly with either the nuclear industry or the regulatory community – is that although it is the radionuclide which causes the harm, this radionuclide is carried held within a chemical compound – whose behaviour is determined by the surrounding chemical environment. These chemical effects can result in extraordinary degrees of variation in the predicted contamination levels.

Prediction of Degree of Harm

The February 2009 Environment Agency (EA) ‘Criteria for RadWaste Disposal’ document 1 sets out 2 the Environment Agency’s view – in quantitative terms – of the risks associated with radionuclide exposure.

The Environment Agency start from a baseline 3 of a:

one in a million’ risk

( per year – to the person at greatest risk )

of developing either 4:

· non-fatal cancer,

· fatal cancer, or

· inherited defect

and state that this level of risk would arise from an exposure of:

20 micro Sieverts per year 5 , 6

(micro = one millionth)

Risk levels depend on the chance of something happening.

If the chance of being exposed to the radionuclides was less than one, then

the ‘one in a million’ baseline would be matched with

an exposure level that was higher than 20 micro Sieverts. 7

Nuclear Reactors and Childhood Cancer

In late 2007 the German ‘KiKK’ study

(KiKK stand for Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von KernKraftwerken – ‘Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants)

reported a 1.6-fold increase in all cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 kilometres of all German nuclear power stations.


Ian Fairlie

"Childhood cancers near German nuclear power stations: the ongoing debate"

Published in ‘Medicine, Conflict and Survival’ 1st July 2009 (on-line)

[ http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673482 ]

This article indicates that the issue of just how dangerous exposure to radionuclides is still a matter of some controversy.

It is a matter of much concern and upset that the particular illness that was found near the German nuclear power stations was leukaemia and solid cancer in children under five years old. 1

Waste Fuel can be Lethal within a Minute


Allan Hedin
"Spent nuclear fuel – how dangerous is it? A report from the project "Description of risk’ "
SKB Report - Technical Report TR-97-13 (March 1997)

On page 21 of this report at para 3.5.2: the following two figures are provided:

1) the lethal dose is given as 5,000 ‘milli-Sieverts’ 1

2) a dose rate of one million ‘milli-Sieverts’ per hour is quoted

(one year after one tonne of waste fuel has been taken out of a reactor – when standing at one metre distance from the waste fuel rod)

From these two figures it is then calculated 1 that:

To stand one metre from:

· one tonne of waste fuel,

· one year after its removal from the reactor

- would kill you in twenty seconds.

On page 23 of the NDA ‘Disposability’ report for Westinghouse ‘AP1000’ 1 type fuel 2, a weight of approximately 600 kilograms per ‘AP1000’ fuel assembly is quoted. (see Table B4)

The figure quoted for the weight of an ‘EPR’ 3 fuel assembly is also roughly 600 kilograms. 4 ( See page 29 – Table B9)


· One fuel assembly of either ‘AP1000’ or ‘EPR’ type fuel weighs roughly half a tonne.

· This means that standing next to one of either of these fuel assemblies could kill you in about a minute.1

Problematic Nature of Harm Prediction

Although extensive measures are taken to avoid people coming directly into contact with waste fuel rods (and so being killed more or less immediately) the fact is that nuclear power stations do routinely release radionuclides into the air and the sea - and it is know that these can cause cancer.

Putting numbers to the cancer rates is an area of much controversy.

There is also the fact a significant proportion of the radionuclides created will be dangerous up to one million years into the future. Such timescales are beyond our imagination.

In addition to this there is the fact that nuclear power is the Siamese Twin of nuclear weapons. The same metals (plutonium and uranium-235) are used, and also many of the same techniques. If we continue on into the 21st Century with yet more nuclear reactors, there is a danger that they will be used against us.


An obvious reason why it is difficult to calculate the levels of harm that would arise due to the synthesis of radionuclides in the proposed reactors is that many of the radionuclides will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years into the future. Clearly making predictions over this timescales would be extremely problematic.

Chemical Effects

It is the radionuclide that causes the harm. However, generally speaking 1 radionuclides do not ‘travel solo’ but exist in combination with other chemical elements to form chemical compounds.

The behaviour of these chemical compounds depends on:

· the chemical elements included

· how they are joined together

· the temperature

· the amount of electrically charged (‘ionic’) particles near-by

· whether the surroundings are watery or oily – or solid or gas

· whether the surroundings are simple or complicated
(ie. is the compound just one amongst a ‘smorgasbord’ of others – or is the chemical system quite simple)

· the surrounding pressure

These chemical effects can result in extraordinary degrees of variation in predicted radionuclide behaviour.

(This phenomenon is discussed further below.)

Radionuclides Inside the Body

The ‘Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters’ (CERRIE) was an independent Committee established by the Government in 2001, following concerns about the dangers to health associated with radionuclides once they were inside the body.

In October 2004, the Committee produced a final report and a Press Release. 1

In the Press Release2, the Chairman of the Committee, Professor Dudley Goodhead (OBE) 3 said:

"The main finding of the Committee's Report is that we have to be particularly careful in judging the risks of radioactive sources inside the body. The uncertainties in these internal radiation risks can be large"

Uranium Mining

Even the process of mining the uranium is dangerous. Michael Barnes QC who was the Inspector for the Hinkley ( C ) Inquiry at the end of the eighties concluded:


"I recommend that if future proposals are put forward for further nuclear facilities which would involve the importing of uranium the applicants should use their best endeavours to present information to any future inquiry on conditions for workers and the public in the countries concerned who might be affected by the mining and processing of uranium for the project."

David Lowry – of ‘Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates’ (NWAA) has written a paper on Uranium mining looking at the issues of risk and despoliation – and also at the issue of ‘environmental racism’. The paper can be found on the NWAA web-site. 1

Further information can be also be found on the ‘WISE’ web-site on uranium issues:


RadWaste Burial and Resultant Harm

The Government propose that a future programme of RadWaste Burial would serve to keep the syntheised radionuclides from nuclear power out of harms way for timescales far into the future.

Such an approach has been advocated by the nuclear industry for many years. For example in November 1978 (just over thirty years ago) Dr L E J Roberts, Director of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell in Oxfordshire gave a lecture to the British Nuclear Energy Society (BNES) on the issue of long term management of the most intensely radioactive wastes ‘high level wastes’ – (or ‘HLW’).

In April 1979 this talk was made available as a brochure. 1 On page 19 (Fig 4) a cutaway drawing of the ‘conceptual’ design of an underground RadWaste burial facility is shown.

The present-day idea for RadWaste Burial is more or less the same now as it was in the Seventies.

During the intervening period work has been undertaken in order to establish the degree to which leaks from such a Burial facility would be contaminated. In the 1990s, the work that had been carried out to date on this issue was scrutinised at a Planning Inquiry in Cumbria – where it was planned to initiate excavation works for a RadWaste Burial facility.

This Inquiry was an extremely rigorous process, involving as it did ‘Proofs of Evidence’, supporting references, witnesses and cross-examination. The Inquiry lasted for 66 days (from Sept ’95 to Feb ’96) and was presided over by a Planning Inspector, who had the assistance of a Technical Assessor.

The Inspectors report was delivered in March 1997.

Overall, the Inspector concluded that the Nuclear Industry should not be given the go-ahead to begin their planned programme:

"in [their] current state of inadequate knowledge" 2, 3

The Government accepted the Inspectors conclusions, and the planned Excavation programme did not go ahead. In the subsequent period very little additional research work was done.

In October 2009, the European Union – Joint Research Centre released the following Reference Report:

"Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Moving Towards Implementation" 4

Chapter Two of this Report (pp 10 – 21) - entitled: "The Technical Concept of Geological Disposal" identifies nearly forty outstanding research areas.

In November (2009) Francis Livens, Professor of Radiochemistry at the University of Manchester and a Member of the ‘Committee on Radioactive Waste Management’ (CoRWM) 5 said:

"In recent years we have recognised where we do not have relevant expertise,
[ concerning radioactive waste management ]
and that is a first step towards dealing with these pressing problems.

We are starting at a very low base along what will be a long and complex journey."

Extreme Levels of Harm

Malicious Exposure

Nuclear Reactors are intrinsically linked with nuclear weapons. Al Gore commented in March 2009:

"For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different [nuclear] technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you're a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That's what's happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up." 1

On 24th March, Jacqui Smith at the Home Office warned of the risk of terrorists using nuclear weapons. 2 and the Home Office referred to a strategy of ‘prevent, pursue, protect and prepare’. 3

Nuclear power stations create plutonium 4 thus the fact that the Government is actively seeking the synthesis additional plutonium when the Home Office have raised nuclear concerns is incongruous.

On 17th March 2009 Gordon Brown gave a speech on nuclear proliferation, 5 in which he spoke of ‘capping the production of weapons useable fissile material’. However, there is no question of the fact that the plutonium from nuclear power stations could be used to make nuclear weapons. 6

Release due to Terrorism

Bombs can also be made out of Uranium-235, and a ‘dirty bomb’ (that disperses radionuclides – but isn’t made out of a nuclear explosive) could be made out of something that simply contained radionuclides. Euratom (the nuclear part of the European Union) has a research programme 1 2 which is currently looking at:

‘Malevolent uses of radiation or radioactive material’ 3 The web-site states:


"With new security challenges facing society, there is a need to develop robust and practical approaches in response to the malevolent use of radiation or radioactive materials, in particular to minimise the impact of nuclear and radiological terrorism."

In October 2009 a nuclear scientist working on the Large Hadron atom collider in Switzerland was arrested as it was suspected that he was helping al-Qaeda..  He had worked in the UK at the Rutherford, Appleton laboratory in Didcot, Oxfordshire. 4

Serious Reactor Accidents

The first serious reactor accident in the world took place in the UK, when one of the Windscale 1 ‘Piles’ 2 caught fire.3 There was also a very serious accident in Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986.

In March 1978, an accident happened in a PWR at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania 240 kilometres from New York. This accident is of particular concern as the ‘PWR’ reactor type is of the type proposed by EdF

[1] Source: Professor Andrew Blowers of the Open University, and former member of the governmentfs Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). See Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future ? David Elliott (editor) [Palgrave, 2007] Preface (page xviii).

[2] Business Green 17th Aug 2010 http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2268303/coalition-honeymoon-ends-energy

[3] Sunday Telegraph - 18th July 2010

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7896510/KPMG-says-nuclear-power-wont-happen.html

[4] See also - Platts 19 th July 2010

[4] http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews.aspx?xmlpath=RSSFeed/HeadlineNews/Nuclear/89178

[4] 91.xml

[4] KPMG Press Release ( 19th July 2010 ) ttp://rd.kpmg.co.uk/mediareleases/22235.htm

[4] World Nuclear News ( 19th July 2010 ) http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear_investment_vital_to_meet_UK_emission_targets-1907104.html

[1] “ Government looks for Public Consensus on Managing Radioactive Waste ” – DEFRA Press Release – 12 th September 2001, 132/01

[1] A joule is a unit of energy

[1] See for example “ Radionuclide content for a range of irradiated fuels ” - Contractors Report to Nirex

[1] Contractor: EEUK, Contract Number: TE2769/74 Doc No: Pcdocs395337v5 Reference Number: 17503/74/1 Rev. 2

[1] 3 rd Sept 2002

[1] Section 5.5 PWR, high burnup U fuel ( pp 89 – 100 )

[2] The plutonium – once created in the reactor – may also absorb neutron (s).or break up into two other atoms

[3] The initial fission products comprise the chemical elements zinc (element number 30) to dysprosium (element 66)

[4] Two particular activation products of concern are ‘carbon-14’ and tritium (a radioactive form of hydrogen.)

[1] “ Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes ” NRPB (1995) (National Radiological Protection Board)

[1] Added/updated: 29 August 2008

[1] Volume 6 , No. 1

[1] ISBN 0-85951-386-6

[1] http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733754925?p=1219908766891

[2] For example if there are radionuclides in the atmosphere.

[3] For example if radionuclidea have been taken in by breathing, eating or drinking – or even in a cut.

[1] “ Geological Disposal Facilities on Land for Solid Radioactive Wastes. Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation" (Feb ’09) http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0209BPJM-e-e.pdf [Ref 111 in DECC doc]

[2] page 46 ( para 6.3.10 )

[3] page 47 ( paragraph 6.3.1 )

[4] page 47 (para 6.3.15 )

[5] Environment Agency Disposal Guidance (Feb ’09) page 47 – para 6.3.17

[6] ( NB – ‘micro’ – means one millionth)

[7] also para 6.3.17 – page 47

[1] page 198

[1] milli = one thousandth – (for defintion of ‘Sievert’ see ‘Technical section at the start of this document )

[1] (by reference to Figures 3-8a and b ( See pp 22- 23 )

[1] ‘AP’ – Advanced Passive

[2] “ Geological Disposal Generic Design Assessment: Summary of Disposability Assessment for Wastesand Spent Fuel arising from Operation of the Westinghouse AP1000 ”

[2] NDA ( Oct ’09 )

[2] http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/TN-17548-Generic-Design-Assessment-Summary-of-DA-for-Wastes-and-SF-arising-from-Operation-of-APPWR-October-2009.pdf

[3] ‘EPR’ – European Pressurised Reactor

[4] “Geological Disposal Generic Design Assessment: Summary of Disposability Assessment for Wastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of the UK EPR”

[4] NDA Technical Note no. 11261814

[4] NDA – October 2009

[4] http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/TN-17548-Generic-Design-Assessment-Summary-of-Disposability-Assessment-for-Wastes-and-Spent-Fuel-arising-from-Operation-of-the-EPWR.pdf

[1] assuming that the waste fuel had been removed from the reactor one year earlier and that you were standing one metre away.

[1] The exception would be radio nuclides that are part of the inert (or ‘noble’) gas series. One such example is ‘radon’.

[1] See http://www.cerrie.org

[2] Press Release, 20th Oct 2004 http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_press_release_final.doc

[3] Professor Dudley Goodhead OBE

[3] Director, Medical Research Council Radiation and Genome Stability Unit ( ** Professor Goodhead served as Director of the MRC Unit until his retirement on 30 September 2003. **)

[1] “Uranium Exploitation and Environmental racism: why environmental despoliation and the ignorance of radiological risks of uranium mining cannot be justified by nuclear fuel production” Response to consultation on ‘ Justification Application New nuclear power stations Submitted by the Nuclear Industry Association ’ (June 2008) by Dr David Lowry [ Environmental policy and research consultant ] http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/5794Uranium%20exploitation%20and%20environmental%20racism,%20submission%20to%20nuclear%20justification%20consultation,%2025-3-09.doc

[1] “ Radioactive Waste- policy and perspectives ” L E J Roberts,

[1] Published by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) April 1979

[2] McDonald (1997) p277 para 8.56

[3] A very useful source of Background Information on the ‘Nirex RCF’ decision can be found in an article written by Tom Wilkie in Prospect Magazine (May 1997) http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5050

[4] Authors - W.E. Falck and K.-F. Nilsson http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_reference_report_2009_10_geol_disposal.pdf

[5] a Committee that advises Government.

[1] “ Gore on Lovelock, nuclear power and climate change sceptics ”

[1] Tuesday 16 th March 2009

[1] Guardian

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/16/climate-change-al-gore

[2] “ Home Office warns of Nuclear Terror Threat ” UK Parliament 24th Mar 2009

[2] http://news.parliament.uk/2009/03/nuclear-proliferation-lords-debate/

[3] Telegraph 24th Mar 2009

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5042708/Government-warns-of-nuclear-terror-threat.html

[4] The book ‘Plutonium – Blessing or Curse’ by Herman V. Henderickx ( Pub: ‘The Copper Beech’ Brussels – Denver 1999) referes to the production of about ten kiliograms of plutonium per 1,000 kilograms of waste fuel (assuming that the fuel rod has been in the reactor for three to four years) – [ see page 45. ]

[5] Speech on nuclear energy and proliferation, Tuesday 17 March 2009 Transcript of a speech given by the Prime Minister, http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page18631

[6] “ Managing Plutonium in Britan: Current Options” – Oxford Research Group ‘Current Decisions Report’ Number 21 (September 1998) pp 9-11 “ Will Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel Make it Easier to Acquire Nuclear Weapons? ” Frank Barnaby

[1] part of ‘FP7’ – or the 7 th Framework Programme

[2] See Council of the European Union Press Release - 18 th December 2006 ’Council approves EU research programme for 2007-2013 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_applications/applications/newsroom/loadDocument.ASP?cmsID=221&LANG=en&directory=en/misc/&fileName=92236.pdf

[3] http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom-fission/malevolent_en.html Last Updated – 16 th December 2008

[4] Telegraph 11th Oct 2009

[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6292797/Terror-suspect-worked-at-British-nuclear-lab.html

[4] Sunday Express 11th Oct 2009

[4] http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/133318/Nuclear-suspect-s-link-to-British-lab

[4] - Mail on Sunday 11th Oct 2009

[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219569/Revealed-Al-Qaeda-suspect-worked-UK-laboratory.html?ITO=1490

[4] Mirror 10th Oct 2009

[4] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/10/10/nuclear-scientist-working-on-large-hadron-collider-a-terrorist-115875-21736127/

[4] Independent on Sunday 11th Oct 2009

[4] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nuclear-terror-suspect-is-top-physicist-1800927.html

[1] now Sellafield

[2] In a ‘Pile’ type reactor uranium fuel rods were bombarded with neutrons – and transitioned into ‘fission products’ and plutonium – as is the case for a nuclear power stations; however no effort was made to use the heat to produce electricity. The purpose of the ‘Piles’ was to produce Plutonium for nuclear weapons.

[3] For more details see the book by Lorna Arnold – “ Windscale 1957 – Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident ” Pub: Macmillan (1992)