Border Control Harassment of Chernobyl Children's Charities

Use No 32

If you want new nuclear build the last thing you need is pesky charities bringing children over from Chernobyl. This reminds the carefully groomed UK that nuclear power leads to accident and incident.

The UK Border Agency is stepping up harassment of Chernobyl Children's charities - bizarre given the recent news stories about the failings of Border Control. Radiation Free Lakeland have written to Tim Farron MP to ask that this tactic of harassment is stopped.

At the conference of the European Chernobyl Network in Germany at the weekend, attendees were horrified to hear about the treatment of charities bringing children over from Chernobyl.
Most speakers stated the reason was the UK Government's strong pro-nuclear
stance: Chernobyl children and the snowballing effects of radiation through the generations are not a good advertisement for the development of nuclear power.

http://www.chernobyl-children.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Harrassment-of-Chernobyl-Charities-by-UKBA1.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/07/border-control-row-gulf-theresa-may

Dumping Democracy

http://www.worldscibooks.com/environsci/7895.html


Use No 31

DUMPING DEMOCRACY

Extract from the excellent, myth busting book:
Contesting the future of nuclear power
Benjamin K Sovacool, World Scientific, 2011.

"In one of its most intractable problems, that of nuclear waste, the
industry has outright manipulated data and limited true public participation
to get its way. Some studies of consumer attitudes and public
opinions have shown that public groups will support nuclear power
expansion if assurances of safe waste disposal are provided, but will not
if the waste problem is not resolved.(113) Thus, nuclear power proponents - trade
groups, vendors, and utilities - have shifted from a technical
discourse, which is full of uncertainty, to a public discourse of inclusive
and respectful public consultation about siting as well as criterions of
acceptability and safety. Yet, one study of such efforts in Canada found
that they do not involve true consultation or participation, whereby
citizens have the chance to influence eventual decisions, and are instead
public relations exercises used to reinvent the industry.(114) Nuclear
groups employ public consultation sessions to (1) demonstrate consent
and approval when they do get it, or (2) construct the public as having
fragmented values and opinions that will never be overcome when they
do not get it, telling regulators they should ultimately defer to the
nuclear industry. This situation does not bode well for democracy, the
study concluded, as the public is co-opted either way. Public consultation
is converted from a means to inform public policy into an end
justifying nuclear expansion".

113 See Frans Berkhout, Radioactive Waste: Politics and Technology (London:
Routledge, 1991); A. Blowers, D. Lowry, and B. Solomon, The International
Politics of Nuclear Waste (New.York: Macmillan, 1991); A. Blowers, "Nuclear
Waste and Landscapes of Risk;' Landscapes Research 24(3) (1999),
pp. 241-264; and Peter Stoett, "Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power,
Global Warming, and Security:' Global Environmental Politics 3(1) (2003),
pp.99-116.

114 Darrin Durant, "Buying Globally, Acting Locally: Control and Co-Option
in Nuclear Waste Management," Science and Public Policy 34(7)
(August, 2007), pp. 515-528.

This extract has been published on 101 Uses.. with the kind permission of Professor Benjamin K Sovacool

MRWS - Halloween Special

Use No 30

MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTES SAFELY HALLOWEEN SPECIAL

The Scariest Halloween Story is the one where the nasties appear as
respectable types who say “Don’t Worry Everything is OK!” The viewer
has a hunch that there will be an inevitable doom laden slide to a scary
ending.

With nice timing for the scary Halloween season the Managing Radioactive
Wastes Safely Partnership have produced a draft consultation document
which will be used to continue promoting the “steps towards geological
disposal” of high level nuclear wastes in Cumbria’s leaky geology.

The document which will be discussed in Egremont this thursday says:
"We wanted to be ‘confident in the integrity of the BGS (British Geological
Survey) screening
work/report’.
Our initial opinions are:
BGS study. We are confident in the integrity of the BGS screening report
because it has been endorsed by two independent reviewers and there is no
significant criticism of the study’s integrity from elsewhere".
http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/meetings_more.asp?news_id=30

Really? “No significant Criticism” ?

What about the significant criticism from:

The Nirex Inspector
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/news-and-events/news/nirex-inquiry-inspector-attacks-nda/

Members of the original Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/news-and-events/news/letter-from-corwm-members-on-new-build-waste/

Dr Helen Wallace- author of the Rock Solid? Scientific review
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1052

Dr Rachel Western – former employee of Nirex- researcher for Cumbrian
Friends of the Earth groups
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/943

Professor David Smythe – former employee of Nirex
http://www.davidsmythe.org/nuclear/nuclear.htm

Tim Farron MP
http://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/great-pyramids-spoil-heaps-in-cumbria/

There are many more significant criticisms!

The good news is that unlike the viewer or reader of a scary Halloween
story, Cumbria has the wherewithal to stop the slide into the unfathomable
void.

The Biggest Slag Heap in the World

Use No 29

West Cumbria is famous for being the place where you can find the World's Biggest Liar. Now the Department of Energy and Climate Change are pushing for West Cumbria to be the place where you can find the World's Biggest Slag Heap.

Nominations are already coming in for what this huge slag heap, ripped out of Lakeland geology, could be called:

Robson's Pile

Partnership Peaks (not forgetting the Partnership Pit!)

Teardrops o' Ruskin

Tremor Towers

Seismic Surprise

or perhaps "The Bung" ?


http://www.santonbridgeinn.com/liar/
http://davidsmythe.org/nuclear/nuclear.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/michael-baron/public-servants-and-private-chats-about-dumping-nuclear-waste-in-west-cumbr



Below is a letter to Cumbria County Council from geoscientist Professor David Smythe

Sent to CCC by email – 6th Oct 2011

Dear Mr Kemp



I have just sent off a new paper to MRWS:Cumbria regarding the
unsuitability of the Eskdale granite as a host rock for a waste
repository, and attach a copy for your attention. It includes some
comments on the volumes of rock spoil to be created and then either
re-used later as backfill and/or taken off-site.



I believe that the letter you received from Mark Gough of NDA, dated
19 May 2011, is misleading on this point. Here are some
calculations, based upon the volumes of 'higher strength' rock spoil
which would be created.



The volume to be removed (if not left in Eskdale) is 6640921 cu. m.
(from ref. [5] of my paper). That is based on the volume of space to
be created underground, and therefore refers to solid rock. This
volume could be stored as a berm 1000 m long by 200 m across and 35
m high. Actually it will be about 50% greater in volume (e.g. 50 m
not 35 m high) because rock spoil is less dense than solid granite.
The NDA clearly can't leave that in Eskdale (along with the
additional rock spoil berms of about half this volume again) to
remain for up to 50 years and then re-used as backfill). NDA will
presumably ship it out - granite cuttings do have a value as
aggregate. But we have to address the road and rail usage of
removing it.



Multiply the volume by the density of solid granite (2.7 tonnes per
cu. m) to get the weight. That makes 17930487 tonnes. A road lorry
has a 44 tonne capacity, so that makes 407511 loads. Spread over 10
years (a maximum figure for the excavation phase), that means 112
loads per day - or a lorryload every 4 minutes during a working day
of 8 hours, every day of the week, for 10 years. The road traffic is
clearly double that because the returning empty lorries have to be
counted as well.



This is completely at odds with the assurances you have been given
by NDA:



"we have assumed that all of the excavated rock spoil could be
stored on the surface and then either re-used in construction and
backfilling, or for landscaping and site restoration. Under this
scenario there would be no requirement to transport rock spoil
off-site."



Please note that similar figures will apply if the host rock is some
other kind of 'higher strength'or 'lower strength' rock. Note that
the evaporite scenario (the third generic host rock type) does not
apply to West Cumbria.



So is CCC going to permit this kind of long-term environmental
damage within the National Park?



I await your comments with interest.



Yours sincerely

David Smythe

Jollies

Use No 28

Jollies

Rather than spending taxpayer’s money on a jolly this week to see France's
research into geological dumping the DECC sponsored Managing Radioactive
Wastes Safely (!) Partnership should go for a walk up Scafell. A walk up
Scafell would give the Partnership a sense of the scale of DECC’s proposal
for a huge hole in the ground. Radiation Free Lakeland would be happy to
organise a day guiding members of the Partnership to the top of Scafell.
We would, of course, avoid the "Bad Step." We could then look down to
get some idea of the depth of the geological dump proposed - 1000 meters.
Scafell is a mere 978 meters.

In looking for a Cumbrian dump for intermediate level nuclear wastes,
Nirex found in the 1990s that the geology of the Lake District leads to
upward waterflows into the aquifer surrounding the mountains. The Inquiry
revealed difficulties in identifying a large volume of rock in West
Cumbria to avoid fast routes for radionuclide escape through watery
fractures and faults. A much larger volume of rock would be needed for the
plan for a dump containing spent nuclear fuel and high level wastes which
being hotter and more volatile must be spaced further apart.

Residents of Bure, France, are "embracing" that underground research
laboratory about as much as Nevada welcomed the now abandoned Yucca
Mountain nuclear dump. Bure's aquifers run through the proposed storage
site. Public opposition to nuclear power in France is rising because of
the waste problem.

Maybe there isn’t enough rock in the world to isolate high level nuclear
waste from humans and the environment into eternity? No where in the world
has done this. Maybe it is more honest to say there is no ‘solution’ and
to just stop producing high level nuclear wastes? Certainly this
Partnership 'process' should be scrapped now before more public money is
spent on “steps towards” a worlds first, high level nuclear waste
geological dump,- located somewhere as yet unspecified (for DECC's sake
don't scare the horses!) in West Cumbria.

http://www.cumbriacrack.com/2011/09/29/fact-finding-repository-visit-for-west-cumbria-managing-radioactive-waste-safety-partnership-members/

http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/atomkraft/GPI_nucl_waste_crisis_in_France_briefing_30may06.pdf

Protest

Use no 27

Protest - Stop New Nuclear

The Stop New Nuclear network website puts it very well....

"We can stop new nuclear
The government and the nuclear industry want us to believe that nuclear new-build in Britain is a done deal. They want to discourage us from protesting – the message they want us to swallow is clear: opposition is futile, and we will be going ahead anyway!
However, that couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, the government has introduced a framework which effectively will subsidise new nuclear at our expense – as electricity consumers and taxpayers. Yes, the government has effectively deprived local communities from having a say in the planning process for new nuclear and other major infrastructure projects thus dumping a crucial cornerstone of local democracy.
But nuclear new-build in Britain is already behind schedule and has faced legal and other setbacks. Public concern is mounting following the Fukushima disaster. If we can stop the building at Hinkley, we can stop the whole process. Now is the time to mobilise and take action.
New-nuclear in Britain is far from being a done deal, and we can still stop it!

NEW NUCLEAR — STOP IT AT HINKLEY!

The action:
A non-violent blockade of Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset"

http://stopnewnuclear.org.uk/

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Campaigners-step-Hinkley-protest/story-13462638-detail/story.html

http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2011/hinkley-protests-10-09-11.php

Petitioning "Scaremongerers"

Use No 26

Petitions

Cumbrian Petition Opposes the World’s Top Trump Nuke Dump

Radiation Free Lakeland delivered a 1520 signature petition to Cumbria County Council offices in Kendal on Monday 5th September. The petition calls on Cumbria County Council and Copeland and Allerdale Borough Councils to halt the Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely process by their withdrawal. The government’s MRWS process has one agenda - “steps towards geological disposal” which means a newly mined area (or two or three) filled with high level radioactive wastes – in a hole(s) bigger than Lake Windermere and as deep as the Eiffel Tower. (see Refs below)

Despite the implications for Cumbria and its neighbours this petition has received almost no mainstream local or national press coverage apart from a Radio Cumbria interview on the morning of the hand over, where RAFL was accused repeatedly of “scaremongering” by the Leader of Copeland Borough Council. This set the tone of the interview which was topped off by the presenter (having taken his cue) shouting at volunteer Marianne Birkby. MRWS employ the services of a PR company to write speeches, letters and advise on “Crisis and Issues PR.” The PR Company is owned by Chair of Cumbria Tourism Eric Robson and Paul Gardner former political speech writer. Other 'facilitators' are also employed, costing the taxpayer £1M+ yearly Positive press coverage is one of the aims with adverts and multi page inserts into local press.

Many of the signatures were collected at Gosforth Show where the MRWS Partnership also had a stall. In 1995 Longlands Farm at Gosforth was chosen as the most likely location for an intermediate level waste dump. Following a public inquiry, the Nirex Inquiry Decision was that the site should be sought elsewhere - well away from the Irish Sea. In
2011 the vast majority of people at Gosforth Show who visited the Radiation Free Lakeland stall were keen to sign the petition and understood that Cumbria’s leaky geology is not safe, dry or remote enough from human habitation to keep high level radioactive wastes isolated into eternity.

A covering letter has been sent to Cumbria County Councillors and Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councillors. The full text of the letter
is below:

5th September 2011


To Cumbria County Council, Copeland and Allerdale Borough Councils.


Dear Cumbria County Councillor,

Cumbria County Council and Allerdale and Copeland Borough Council are absolutely right to object to the distribution of low level nuclear wastes in Cumbrian landfill sites such as Lillyhall and coal mines such as Keekle (1). Radiation Free Lakeland fully support these objections (2). Given the sensible objection to the dispersal of low level nuclear wastes, it makes no sense for Cumbrian councils to “express an interest” in the geological disposal of high level nuclear wastes (3).

We will be delivering a petition of 1520 signatures to CCC on Monday 5th September. The petition calls on Cumbria County Council and Copeland and Allerdale Borough Councils to halt the Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely process by their withdrawal (4). The MRWS process has one agenda -
“steps towards geological disposal” which means a newly mined area (or two or three) filled with high level radioactive wastes – in a hole(s) bigger than Lake Windermere and as deep as the Eiffel Tower (6).

In November 2008 Cumbria County Councillors were not allowed to vote on what they described as ‘the most important decision this council will ever take.” (7) Copeland and Allerdale were told: “This is the option being taken in the US at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where highly radioactive fuel will go underground. The Yucca Mountain project involves URS Washington, a key partner in Sellafield's parent body organisation”. (8) Sounds plausible but geological disposal of high level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain is off the agenda because of contamination risks to that regions water, soil and air. URS Washington have now set up shop in Cumbria, a much wetter area than Nevada (9). Despite the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership’s reassuring rhetoric, there is in fact nowhere in the world with an operational high level waste geological disposal facility (10).

There are those with concerns about Cumbria’s geology who advocate geological disposal elsewhere (11). We agree that Cumbria is the wrong place but would go further and suggest that there is no place in the world safe, dry and remote enough to put high level nuclear wastes into the
ground and expect them to stay isolated from humans and the environment.

Certainly as far as Cumbria’s geology is concerned It is a massive waste of time, energy and taxpayers money for councils in Cumbria to “express an interest” in “volunteering” to host a high level nuclear waste repository. The Nirex Inquiry Decision was that the site should be sought elsewhere - well away from the Irish Sea. Eminent geologists have recently confirmed that this meant outside West Cumbria: and the Irish Government and others would inevitably lodge legal actions under EU Law to prevent inevitable radioactive pollution of the Irish Sea from a deep underground dump (12).

“Steps towards geological disposal” in Cumbria are being used as a front. The government is desperate to be seen to comply with the findings of the Flowers report that:

There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method
exists to ensure the safe containment of long lived, highly radioactivewaste for the indefinite future. (13)

BNFL (now the NDA) produced a video in 1999 which made a far stronger case against 'geological disposal' in Cumbria than any petitioner such as Radiation Free Lakeland could hope to. The video advises that areas of "high rainfall, permeable rocks and hills and mountains to drive the water flow" would guarantee high level radioactive wastes migrating to the surface (14). In other words geological disposal of high level nuclear
wastes in an area such as Cumbria would make that land too fiercely radioactive to sustain life.

We urge Cumbria County Council, and Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils to withdraw from the ‘Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely’ process as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,



Marianne Birkby
Volunteer* (dictionary definition)
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland

NOTE:
*The word ‘Volunteer’ as used in the MRWS process has mutated to: council
volunteering their region to site a high level nuclear waste repository in
return for taxpayer millions.
The dictionary definition of Volunteer is:
• of the volunteer's own free will and without coercion
• for no financial payment
• A person who performs or offers to perform a service voluntarily
• A person who renders aid, performs a service, or assumes an obligation
voluntarily
• without payment in fact or in kind
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/volunteer


REFS:
(1) Copeland Rejects Keekle Head Nuclear Waste Plan
http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/copeland-rejects-keekle-head-nuclear-waste-plan-1.869127?referrerPath=home/2.2837

(2) Radioactive Landfill at Keekle Head and Lillyhall? No Thanks!
Facebook group – 115 members
http://www.facebook.com/groups/119805971373120/

Bid to Oppose Lillyhall Landfiill Legalities
http://www.getnoticedonline.co.uk/news/general-news/bid-to-oppose-lillyhall-landfill-legalities.html

(3) “expressing an interest”
http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/underground-dump-not-a-done-deal-1.676384?referrerPath=home

(4) Petition – NO Underground Nuke Dump
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1368

(5) “We must progress implementation of geological disposal”
Charles Hendry MP
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn10_114/pn10_114.aspx

(6) Repository Footprint – slide 8
Would a deep nuclear waste repository in West Cumbria be safe? Dr Helen
Wallace
http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/HW_allerdale_fin.pdf

(7) Council Slammed in Nuke Dump Row
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/council-slammed-in-nuke-plan-row-1.277316?referrerPath=news/1.117593

(8) Allerdale might host N-waste Dump
http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/business/1.282959

(9) Nevada Objects 229 Times
Las Vegas Journal http://www.lvrj.com/news/36489114.html

(10) Rock Solid – scientific review by Dr Helen Wallace
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2010/rock-solid-a-scientific-review/

(11) 13 Years on Nirex report makes compelling reading
http://www.getnoticedonline.co.uk/news/general-news/thirteen-years-on-nirex-report-makes-compelling-reading.html
Prof David Smythe
http://davidsmythe.org/nuclear/nuclear.htm


(12) Irish Action on Sellafield
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?action=view&id=1466


(13) As part of its response to the Flowers report, the Government made
the Department of the Environment responsible for radioactive waste
management policy (Command Paper 6820)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UZhCS7oaV2wJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldsctech/41/4103.htm+Flowers+report+nuclear&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari&source=www.google.com


(14) The Pangea Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjBSAlu0hjM

Pangea Project Sponsored by BNFL Rules Out Cumbria ie area of “high
rainfall, permeable rocks and hills and mountains to drive the water
flow.”
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/2115