Steel a Cast Iron Case

Elsewhere on their site the ONR profess openness and favours public engagement.

Signs of The Times

Lacking in Engie?

"Even without the link to nuclear proliferation, nuclear power carries dangers of a magnitude that we ought not to accept.   There is something profoundly stupid about continuing to multiply a series of engineering marvels that contain fifteen billion curies of radiation.   We do not know enough about radiation and cannot be sure enough of our technical prowess to allow this system to dominate our energy supply.   Moreover, the instinctive fear of radioactivity is not irrational, as the nuclear advocates assert;  it is also so universal and so enduring that it is a political fact of life."

Panoramic View

Mushrooms and Ministers

We are apolitical - our experiences and observations of politicians and their "advisors" leave us particularly annoyed and amazed at the extent to which self-interest and corruption can be tolerated in the allegedly democratic system.   Cameron arrived in office as Prime Minister promising to deal with the massive influx of special advisors, pointing out that they would be the next big scandal.   Sadly, he did nothing.   The special advisors continue to peddle propaganda for big industry and vested interests, most usually to the detriment of truth and justice.   Private Eye 1426 (2/9/16) contains six pages of information about how Ministers, MPs and Civil Servants have taken employment with companies with whom they have been dealing, including making decisions on contracts, in the course of their official rôle.

The manner in which DECC and its ministers pushed for nuclear development gave rise to considerable concern for us.   When we started this site the DECC minister was Chris. Huhne.   We know now about his honesty.   Next up, (now Sir) Ed Davey, who left government to work for a lobbying company, MHP Communications, who are the lobbying firm for Électricité de France - a company who already has employees seconded to the department!   According to Private Eye, Davey was responsible for "pushing a £20 billion  (and rising) nuclear contract whilst in office."    There is, of course (!), no suggestion of improper conduct, but neither is there any transparency.

By a strange coincidence, linking to several other contemporary stories, together with the Panorama programme we report elsewhere, Reuters report that 'former Japanese Premier Junichiro Koizumi has said that current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a “lie” by downplaying the damage wrought by the Fukushima nuclear accident, and claiming that the radioactivity contaminating the site was “under control.”'   An additional report in The Times, 8/9/16, add that Mr. Koizumi acknowledged that, as prime minister from 2001 to 2006, he supported Japan's nuclear power programme but he said he now opposed it.   "I believed what the experts told me, that nuclear energy was safe", he said.

The prime minister at the time of the disaster, Naoto Khan, attended meetings in Anglesey last year to support those who were opposing the Wylfa proposals.   The company proposing to build were dismissive of the opposition, saying that there was no chance of a tsunami occuring on Anglesey - as if that were the sole cause of nuclear accidents!

Ref.:   http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2015-02-25/ex-leader-of-japan-calls-for-wylfa-nuclear-plant-plans-to-be-scrapped/

Fukushima has long-since passed out of U.K. news, even though it is still continuing to pose serious problems for Japanese residents and the environment.   The abilities of the various nuclear factions to suppress unwelcome news continues to amaze.

Of course, keeping things secret is one of the keys to nuclear expansion and the habit started early, continuing to this day.   Many years ago, for example, Tony Benn, M.P., spoke in the House:

From Hansard:   5 Apr 2000 : Column 1000


"The longer I served in Government – I was a Minister for 11 years – the more I found that it was easy for people to confuse the public interest with the convenience of Ministers.   That is easy to do;  if it embarrasses Ministers, it cannot be in the public interest – but in fact, it is not in the interest of Ministers.

The real reason why I want to contribute to the debate is because of the nuclear industry, for which I had responsibility for many years.   Recent events at Sellafield confirm what I learned by experience; even as a Minister – let alone a Member of Parliament – I was never told the truth by the nuclear industry.   For example, I found out about the fire at Windscale – now called Sellafield – only when I visited Tokyo.   My officials had never told me about it.   When I asked them why they had not done so, they said, “It was before you were a Minister”.

When the Americans discovered that there had been an explosion at Khysthm, the major Soviet reprocessing plant, I was never told.   I asked the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, “Why didn’t you tell me?”   He replied, “We were told by the Central Intelligence Agency not to tell British Ministers, because it could create concern about the safety of nuclear power”.

It was not until I left office that I discovered that, while I had been making honest speeches about atoms for peace, all the plutonium from our civil nuclear power stations was going to America to make the bomb.   The atoms for peace power stations were bomb factories for the Pentagon.   I felt affronted by that.   Had people known the facts at the time, the development of the debate on nuclear power and the nuclear industry would have been much better informed.   We should not have had the problem at Sellafield, because the matter would probably have been dealt with earlier." From Hansard:   Early Day Motion, 413 That this House is deeply concerned by the hazards at Sellafield exposed by the BBC's Panorama documentary, Sellafield's Nuclear Safety Failings; notes that these failings include the storage of radioactive waste in degrading plastic bottles and 97 incidents of staff shortages; further notes with concern the potentially catastrophic damage that could be caused by any leakage of nuclear waste; pays tribute to the work done by the BBC and the whistleblowers at Sellafield; urges the Government to establish an inquiry into improving security at Sellafield; further urges the acceleration of the nuclear decommissioning program for nuclear waste; and calls on the Government to avoid worsening the situation with new nuclear developments at Moorside and Hinkley Point C.

The concerns expressed on the Panorama programme were obviously notified to the Sellafield management in advance, so the usual pro-nuclear support leap forward to its defence.   (See the Facts page to see what was said by the various M.P.s)   The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (successor to DECC) N. Hurd, M.P., issued a string of placating rhetoric, including the best known, "everything at Sellafield is safe" - no doubt no animals were hurt at any time, and there was no release of radioactive materials, no danger to the public, etc.   However, in one of the most amusing paragraphs, he states that he has asked the regulators whether Sellafield is safe.   What does he expect them to say?   Can they possibly say no, but perhaps it is a little bit dangerous round the edges, thereby acknowledging their failures?   What of the reports from Select Committees that were dismissed by the chief executive of the NDA, Clark, who is obviously in a better position to see how safe things are.

What is more concerning, however, is that Early Day Motion 413 only attracted seven signatures.   Is this the result of apathy, ignorance or idleness?   Or do they not watch Panorama?

. . . and those photographs and videos, internal records, government reports, etc.?   Were they all faked?   Were the American company that was dismissed  in April, merely spouting sour grapes?   Surely not!   Despite the rebuttal of the programme's logical findings, there was no rebuttal of individual components of the evidence.    Do we see yet more mushroom fodder for the government?

Elsewhere on this site we question NuGen staff's assertion that there are identical AP1000 reactors "safely and reliably up and running".   It seems that in Vogtle, Georgia, U.S.A. - a project which has so far taken 30 years and is still not complete - the costs are already above those for Hinkley, standing at $900 million over the $14 billion budgeted for the 2.2 GW development.   It is also running 14 months late.   Pretty much on a par with all the other safe, reliable, reactors from other manufacturers then?

1/9/16

Most things are continuing without too much ado.   The Whitehaven News continues its mainly pro-nuclear articles and "news" stories provided by Sellafield, its supporters and the local and natrional politicians.   We find it very strange that Sellafield is still credited with helping to support local causes and helping to build educational facilities, provide equipment, etc.   Yet Sellafield does not earn a profit.   On the contrary, it costs U.K. taxpayers over £1,500,000,000 every year - increasing annually, of course to enable the private companies involved to make hefty profits.   So, why does the press, particularly the Whitehaven News, which should know better, persist in publishing these stories of Sellafield as a great benefactor?

Elsewhere, the stories are of over 6 million visitors coming to the Lake District.   How many of them visited the coastal areas?   How much money could that tourism have contributed to the local economy of Copeland and its associates?  

The BBC managed to get stirred up enough to present a short article in their North West Tonight programme about the objections of Millom residents to having the pylons associated with "Moorside" striding across their patch of land.   It seems unlikely that they have yet realised that one string of the pylons will be adequate to convey the amount of power produced and include redundancy for faults.   So a miminum of two strings will be required, spaced a few miles apart.   Millom's answer is to bury the cables - without appearing to consider the concept of not building "Moorside" at all.

Panorama, on Monday, 5^th September, is to present an article on the dangers of Sellafield's legacy wastes and the risks associated therewith.   Again, they seem to be missing the trick.   How can it possibly be safe to build three more highly risky reactors literally just across the road from such a site as Sellafield.   As we said in our recent letter to the Whitehaven News - which they published in full - the local councillors may be able to change the Local Plans, but they can't make the situation safe or sensible by doing so.   Hopefully this view of the situation in Sellafield will avoid the sanitised verson presented by Professor Jim al Khalili the last time round.

Our letter to the Queen back at the beginning of July at last elicited a response.   We wrote suggesting that, as Her Majesty owned the seabed around the U.K. coast, she could put a stop to the idea of power companies digging ut up, tunneling under it, or bulding structures thereon.   As expected, the response says that Her Majesty cannot get involved in state matters.   Our letter was, however, forwarded to various departments.   Perhaps we should have sent her the full response to the consultation document - maybe if it came via H.M. Queen they would have bothered to read it?   The copy we sent to what used to be D.E.C.C. and is now D.B.E.I.S. merely elicited the response that we were correct about NuGen's proposals to build in Cumbria.   However, as NuGen is a private consortium with private financial means, it was nothing to do with D.B.E.I.S.   Strange when you think of the guarantees, etc., that are involved.   We believe that it is a lot to do with D.B.E.I.S.

The Times today has a very interesting article by Matt Ridley on the truth behind climate change.   He debunks a lot of the myths that have annoyed us for so long, and points out that the earth has indeed been much warmer than it presently is, and that the anomaly of a short Ice Age - caused by volcanic debris blocking sunlight from the earth - is the reason behind the apparent rapid increase.   The atmosphere is merely reverting to its long-term trend.

Ref.:   Comment:  "Ice Scares Aren't All They're Cracked Up To Be", Matt Ridley, The Times, 1/9/16.

Back to the D.B.E.I.S. news.   They are currently considering whether to appeal against the findings of the court over the awarding of the contract to move radioactive material around the country, under the guise of a "clean-up".   See our article of 31/7/16, "Something Nasty Which Leaves a Fishy Smell", below.

The political climate in France has deteriorated, with the result that they are now hoping that Hinkley C is turned down in order that they can have a real up-to-date reason for hating the British.   On the other side of the world the Chinese are still upsetting our other hopeful nuclear provider, the Japanese, with their stance over the South China Sea and some small islands that are now a bit bigger than they used to be as a result of Chinese construction projects.   Presumably the true motive is the discovery of rare minerals under the sea bed.   However, Japan now wishes to dramatically increase its budget for its armed forces, to supply them with modern equipment.   Would it be amusing to have both these companies building in the U.K. at the same time, with the French as referee?   Perhaps not.

We've mentioned earlier about the involvement of local and national politicians.   Their allegiance to the nuclear cause has paid dividends in the past with various awards.   The father of the movement, Nuclear Jack Cunningham - Lord of the Realm - was recently awarded a Japanese honour:  The Rising Sun Gold and Silver Star.   Known for his love of all things nuclear, Lord Cunningham was certainly influential in developing the dependency of west Cumbria on nuclear development and this, at least, will have assisted Toshiba to get its plans for "Moorside" on the table.

Chinese Taken Away

International politics are very strange and difficult.   You think you understand something, then all of a sudden you don't know anything.   Hinkley Point C has been on the cards for years, each time it is almost due for an official start and the copious and ostentatious signings of contracts is scheduled, along comes another hiccup.

The nuclear industry works on the premise of not giving people time to think about all the ramifications of a project.   They have people in high office (and local policitians, too), who are very willing to support anything that expands or promotes nuclear development, no matter what the cost to the community forced into hosting it.   (How many nuclear power stations are there in the Cotswolds?)

So Électricité de France, accompanied by China General Nuclear Power tried to "bounce" the new Prime Minister into signing up for the Hinkley project, despite widespread informed opinion that the whole deal was impossibly expensive, too risky, and relied too much on foreign powers.   China General Nuclear Power is one of China's state-owned company, under the direct control of the State Council, comprised of members of the Communist Party of China.

For years now, a host of nations, including Russia, North Korea and China have been accused of hacking into sensitive networks belonging to Western powers.   Not just individuals are being hacked, but all the major companies and departments of state.   The aim is to spy on technical and commercial operations so that the hackers have a distinct advantage.  

The Five Eyes alliance is a secretive, global surveillance arrangement of States comprised of the United States National Security Agency, the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment Canada, the Australian Signals Directorate, and New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau.   The idea being that all those countries share a bit of their intelligence for the greater good.

Australia has banned Chinese companies from being involved in sensitive operations.   It may well be for good reason:  a Chinese man who once worked for Westinghouse but is now a naturalised American, has been charged with leading a conspiracy to steal American power companies' secrets in order to speed up the development and production of China's reactor technology.   Because there is no proper legislation available to support the accusation, the senior advisor to China General Nuclear Power has been charged under legislation designed to curtail proliferation of nuclear weapons.   The timing is very interesting, as the U.K. government will not be making the decision on Hinkley until after the American courts have decided the case.

Meanwhile, in Japan, where 87% of the people are opposed to nuclear development and the restarting of the reactors stopped following Fukushima's disaster, there are moves to permit the government to expand their military arsenal.   Perhaps the fears over China's claim to islands in the South China Sea are the real reason, but could they have other things on their minds?

Amusingly, immediately after the decision not to decide was made, China threatened to withdraw from other major projects if Hinkley (and subsequently their own Bradwell development) did not go ahead.   Isn't that the type of behaviour that people in the U.K. are afraid of?

31/7/16

We have long suggested that the actions of the nuclear industry are ripe for the attention of investigative journalism.   That misleading statements are made, government and local positions infiltrated by pro-nuclear activists or even nuclear company staff, merely adds to our discomfort.   Having seen what goes on in Cumbria, it was of little surprise to learn that Électricité de France staff had done the rounds in the Hinkley area to offer to place local businesses on the approved list of suppliers and contractors.   Our view is that this is almost blackmail.   The key question is whether any company refusing to consider Électricité de France's offer still make it onto the approved list?   If the answer is yes, then what is the point of the exercise?   Or is the idea, as we believe, to make suggestions that a business stands to gain - but only if they support the Hinkley build?

That the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, certainly caused a lot of fuss over the decision to not decide about Hinkley until later in the year.   It seems that a government adviser has thoughts about nuclear and security (has he been reading our site?) that don't fit with the requisite pro-nuclear view.   We are currently placing bets on their longevity in the respective roles.   Nasty news tends to attach itself to those who don't agree with the nuclear industry.   People don't refer to the Sellafield mafia affectionately.

Radiation Free Lakeland has drawn our attention to the circumvention of the rules in respect of nuclear waste dumping.   Some controlled releases into the environment will be permitted, as it apparently will not affect other countries.

For us, though, the clincher was the High Court ruling that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority had cooked the books in relation to a £7 billion contract to decommission a variety of nuclear sites.   The contract was awarded to a consortium of Babcock and Fluor, known as the Cavendish Fluor Partnership, back in 2014.   Babcock Nuclear's website states, "We are strategic partners to Électricité de France Energy".   (Anyone recognise a pattern here?)   The losing company, Energy Solutions - which may be something of a misnomer, as there is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste - sued the NDA, as it considered that its tender was far better economically than the one that Fluor had submitted.   It seems they were right.

The judge, Mr. Justice Fraser, decided that the authority had "manipulated" the assessment and awarding of the contract.   He went on, "It sought to avoid the consequence of disqualification by fudging the evaluation - to avoid reaching a situation where Cavendish Fluor would be given a fail."   He added that Cavendish Fluor should have been disqualified, as Energy Solutions' was the most economically advantageous tender, with a score 6% better than that of Cavendish Fluor.   To avoid any misunderstanding, the judge said, "By the word 'fudging', I mean choosing and outcome and manipulating the evaluation to reach that outcome.   This was by choosing a score high enough to avoid that undesirable outcome, rather than arriving at a score by properly considering the content of the tender against the scoring criteria."   He also said, "There were manifest errors by the NDA in the evaluation of the tender".   The NDA are surely no strangers to evaluating contracts?   How could they make "mistakes" like this?   It might almost seem as if there is some mysterious and nefarious force at work.

However, Energy Solutions has launched a bid to reclaim the costs of its bid and lost profits, so only the U.K. taxpayer will suffer the loss.   The claim is believed to be between £120 million and £200 million.   If it is successful, will there be a public enquiry into the matter, or even - Heaven forefend! - a criminal investigation.   Will heads roll?   Unlikely.  Anyone have a large tarpaulin to help the cover up?

In a kindly effort to alleviate embarrassment to the NDA, the judge offered that, "They may have been suffering from over-work".   Given what we see going on around, we think he may be being just a little too kind.   By a huge coincidence, the Chief Executive, John Clarke, has announced his retirement from the NDA.   What will he do next, we wonder.

Now the contract has been awarded, Cavendish Fluor have put up the price by £1.6 billion.   Nice work, but what is the point of tendering for a contract if the bid price can be varied at will immediately afterwards.   Kindly note the euphemism, too, when they refer to nuclear "clean up".   Obviously there is no such thing.   All that happens is that the radioactive materials are moved around, but the only thing that cleans up radioactivity is time.

Ref.    http://www.the times.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode-times_prod_web_2

---

31/7/16

It appears that whatever else happens to Hinkley, Électricité de France will not be out of pocket.   Should the British government decide to come to its senses and put an end to the whole fiasco, it will still cost the taxpayer £2.5 billion.   Well done the experts at DECC.   In the event that it should go ahead, then we will be committed to paying the French £30 billion in subsidies over 35 years.   Of course, if at any time anything goes wrong . . .   Is it possible to force a foreign country to honour its obligations and contracts?   According to The Sunday Times, the National Audit Office has done some sums and is due to report that :
Goodness only knows that successive governments have instigated some scandalously poor private finance initiatives or PFIs as they are known.   The strange thing is that this agreement with Électricité de France has been around for years and no-one has shown it for what it is.   Why would that be?   Aren't DECC's civil servants supposed to be smarter than this?   Given the verdict in the above article about the awarding of a contract to an less-worthy winner, is there not something we should know?   Who is too friendly with whom?   Who has shares in what?   What rewards and awards are/were in the offing on completion of the Électricité de France deal?   Certainly a lot of Cumbrian people should be in line for awards for services to the nuclear industry.

Sadly their legacy will endure for centuries after they are gone.   Which prompts the thought:  if the deal does fall through and nuclear is properly judged for what it is, then will the likes of Électricité de France, NuGen and Horizon be required to reinstate the land they have damaged?   Obliged to restore it to its original state?   It is a lovely idea - but will it happen?   Should it not happen?

---

31/7/16
While other sources are concentrating on the cost of the mess that is Hinkley, the cost of cleaning up nuclear sites is being overlooked.   The amount of the clean up is somewhere aroung £117 billion at the moment, but that is possibly just another fudged figure.   Again, we note the euphemism "clean up".   What it means is burying as much as they can get away with, then shipping the rest elsewhere for longer term burial or storage.   There is no true clean-up at all.   The means does not exist.

Happily, Braystones Beach afficinados can rest secure in the knowledge that the Environment Agency believes:
31/7/16 .

We wrote to the Office for Nuclear Development to report our concerns about the proposed intensification of rail use apropos the transport of nuclear materials - it being their responsibility.   Despite what the law appears to say, we were wrong, apparently.   It is the Office of Road and Rail.   The ONR are only responsible for the flasks containing the nuclear material.   What they actually said was:
Previous experience with the ORR or Network Rail does not fill us with deep respect or faith in their desire, or ability, to do the right thing.   We may give it a try shortly.   Whatever else, the changes that NuGen are proposing will not improve safety along the line, nor will it improve the amenity for those who live close to it.   However, the final paragraphs say: We make this observation in our Stage 2 consultation response.   It is sheer nonsense to even contemplate building the proposed "Moorside" site in the buffer zone designed to protect Sellafield's scandalously vulnerable site.

---

31/7/16  updated 13/8/16
We sent in a Freedom of Information request to DECC (as it waa back then) on the 16th June, 2016.   The subject was not directly connected with NuGen's project, but closely related to it.   Automatic response was received, assuring us that our request would be dealt with within 15 days, and thanking us for writing to them.   On the 22nd of July, having recieved nothing from DECC, we tried a reminder.   Another automated response, but then nothing.

We have now learned that the reason we received no answer was that the window was too wide.   We have now re-submitted the request with (for now) a narrower focus.   Answers by the 8th September, all being well.

---

7/6/16

1.      Flawed design which has no secondary containment
2.     Environmental impact
3.      No published financial data
4.      Lack of Planning
5.     The proposed sites are contaminated by radioactive material
6.    Unnecessary development of amenities
7.     Outmoded concept
8.    The consultation process is flawed
9.    Infra-structure
10.    Ultimate Waste Disposal
11.    Intrusive Nature of the National Grid Connection
12.    Distortion of Political and Social Scene
13.    Overuse of natural resources
14.     Impinges on basic human rights
For the above reasons, we believe that the flaws in the consultation process, together with the above concerns, are conducive to an application for a judicial review.   Some of the failures and deliberate untruths must surely merit legal challenge, too.
The project at Moorside, if allowed to go ahead, is set to survive, in one form or another, for hundreds of years.   Its legacy would endure far beyond that, probably for millennia.   Is that really the best that west Cumbria can think of - to leave this dangerous, untreatable, toxic mess to perpetuity?   Surely we are better than that?

---

8/6/16

Reading through the NuGen sales brochure - it is not possible to consider it a consultation document - may unintentionally give some a misleading impression.   We note elsewhere the questions posed, and express our incredulity at, the published figure of 73% in agreeing in response to "Do you agree with the need to develop a new nuclear power station at the Moorside search area?"   Then you consider the question:   Are respondents agreeing with the need for a new power station, that it needs to be nuclear, or that it needs to be at Moorside?   Or all three, or any combination of alternatives?   Then look at the published figure of 73% "in favour".   This is 263 people out of a mere 375.   NuGen's own documentation says that 12,000 people a day can be served in Sellafield's canteen, which is where NuGen held one of their meetings.   

Can the 73% figure allegedly in favour of one of the points in the question be extrapolated to represent a proper indication of the wishes of the general population?   No.   Yet that is how it is intended to be interpreted we believe.   Utterly deceitful.

How many thousands will be affected by the proposed development?   According to official statistics, in 2011 (the latest we can find) there were 70,603 Copeland residents.   So far then, NuGen have received responses from 0.5% of the residents and of them 263 people or 0.38% of the entire population of Copeland agreed.   Not quite as pro-nuclear as the NuGen version.   Some of the responses came from Allerdale residents who are virtually unaffected, but we have not included those in the calculations, to the benefit of NuGen's propaganda.

Then we have to question why the second most-pro-nuclear council in the land, Allerdale, has been included.   Adding in the 90,000 Allerdale residents to the above calculations roughly halves the above results.   Looking at the maps and reading list of changes NuGen are going to impose, if they have their way, it is difficult to see what impact, if any, the proposed development would have on those residents.   From the maps, there is no way of telling what connection the respondent has with the nuclear industry, or any obligation or benefit arising therefrom.   

Were the Allerdale respondents included to dilute the responses from those who object to the proposals?   Surely not.

However, such a low response to the consultation process does confirm our suggestion that the consultation is flawed and/or just not working.   Properly done a reasonable consultation could be expected to attract at least 30% of the population, engaging them sufficiently to prompt them to respond.   We believe that a proper census would reveal that the vast majority of residents would be against nuclear development, especially on such a large scale and of such longevity.  However, they have not been made fully aware of the impact of the proposed Moorside development.

---

Toshiba's Plans Branded "Unrealistic"
Nuclear Fallout After Referendum

Consultation?

Social Services?

We have examined the sales brochures supplied by NuGen to sell the idea that the scheme is a fait accompli and that the great majority of people are in favour.   We remain unconvinced.

Nothing appears in the brochures to explain how many people will really be coming into the area.   We are told that the peak number of workers will be 6,500.   We know that the majority of these will be from outside Cumbria.   Presumably they will be bringing with them family and, perhaps, friends.    Let us assume that the national norm of a partner and some children will be brought in with the breadwinner;  this means that there will be around 1300 adults.   Families, according to national statistics are comprised of two adults and an average of 1.8 children - further 5,200.   In total then, 18200 new residents can be expected to arrive.   Rather more substantial than NuGen's figures.

The next glaring omission is any suggestion as to how the requisite increases in health and social services provision will be achieved.   Presumably there will be a need for sexual, physical and mental health service to be greatly increased to meet the likely demand.   How many extra GPs will be required and from whence will they come?   Similarly with all the emergency services.   More police, ambulance and fire service personnel and equipment will be required.

Will the 5,200 additional children all manage to find places in schools, colleges, etc.?
All this seems to indicate that those clever people in London, encouraged by the blinkered NuGen personnel, have completely misunderstood how the rural community is made up.   This is a place where we currently have four trains a day - not four every three minutes - on none at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.   The roads do not permit emergency vehicles to travel at great speeds, and blue lights and two-tone horms have little benefit down our kind of road.

One of the basics of human rights is the supply of clean pure water.   NuGen are expecting United Utilities to come up with an answer to their needs - presumably following Sellafield's example of not paying for anything either.   Yet United Utilities do not magically produce water on demand.   It has to come from a stream, river, well, or spring. in a treatable form.   Because of the great reliance on water to places like Moorside, the supply has to be guaranteed under all circumstances.   For this area it will mean pipelines being laid, tapping into a canalised and covered River Ehen, even greater quantities being extracted from the local lakes.   (We note that NuGen are suggesting they could tap into Sellafield's supply-line, which would mean further vast drainage of Wastwater, recently voted the most beautiful view in Great Britain.)   Wherever it comes from or goes to once used, the impact on the environment is not going to be good.   Such schemes may benefit those who live in towns and cities far away who want electricity to waste, but, rest assured, Cumbria is not going to be enhanced by any of these proposals.

NuGen documentation "does not include an assessment of the potential likely significant environmental effects of the Freshwater Water Supply".   How convenient.

Ref.:  Moorside Stage 2 Consultation Document.   May, 2016,   Item 5.9

We mention elsewhere the unsuitability of the transport network and roads.   There is considerable congestion at peak hours already, even with only the Sellafield traffic.   Nowadays, 40% of families have second cars, so around another 9100 cars may be expected to add themselves to the traffic jams.   This is without construction traffic and heavy loads.

Off The Rails

Residents now have additional questions:   how much extra traffic are they supposed to endure;  what mitigation can there be against the noise and vibration of frequent heavy railway trains;  will the more frequent passage of trains mean that beach residents will have to spend considerably longer each day awaiting permission to cross;  will there be trains during anti-social hours?

The Braystones level crossing has 65,312 vehicle crossings a year - substantially more than the 23,180 suggested by a brief assessment by Network Rail.   (Figures from Network Rail.   FOI request for Sellafield signaller's log.)   Between 5/1/10 and 3/4/15, there were 93 incidents at the crossing.   Increased traffic will surely mean increased incidents.   As we have said from the beginning, a single accident involving a nuclear train will cost far more than bringing the line up to current standards.   We posed the question:  if you were building a line here today would you build it like this?   There was no answer.

Due to our concerns, we have written to the Office for Nuclear Development for their opinion, as they are responsible for enforcing the legal requirements for the transport of hazardous materials [e.g. nuclear loads].

---

Helping With Global Warming - How?

The consultation meeting at Braystones was held yesterday.   A strange mix-up of expert opinion we thought.   Firstly, questioned about the heat exchanger, one "expert" categorically stated that there would be a 12° differential.   We think this a bit strange, as there seems to be no information on where the rest of the superheated water is going to lose its heat.   Moving on to a different "expert" produced the opinion that the differential will be 2° to 3°.   The first expert was brought over to confirm his statement.   The second was adamant he was correct.   We never did reach an amicable resolution, so came away with no improved knowledge.   No ideas emerge as to how to resolve the matter, either.   We would have thought that the re-circulating coolant would need to dissipate an awful lot more than even 14°, which is the figure mentioned in the official information.

Nevertheless, such a large area of the sea being heated by between 2° and 12° must surely bring environmental effects.   Oddly, no-one seems to know (or care!) quite what those effects will be.

---

3/6/16
NuGen have been quite evasive about the "marine off-loading facility".   Now, it appears, there is a good reason.   There are going to be two of them.   One will be very large and intrusive to facilitate deeper draught vessels at all states of the tide, while the second one will be smaller and only of use at limited times.   We were assured that the larger one would be dismantled and taken away after the building of the project at Moorside was completed.   The second one will become a permanent feature.   Has anyone seen any environmental impact assessment to determine the outcome and effects of these resources?   We certainly haven't.   The larger harbour was not on the plans presented at the consultation meeting, but, after persisting, we were offered a version of the plan on a memory stick.   No explanation was forthcoming as to why the main harbour was not on the demonstrated plans.   Surely, if one constructs a large barrier - whether for a harbour or as pipework for cooling water - there will be an impact on the tidal flows and hence the deposition of sands and silts?   Will there be an impact on the holiday beaches of Braystones and beyond, once the tidal flow has been stopped, or at least diverted out to sea?   What will happen to all the radioactive toxins that are at present buried under those sands and silts.

Please view the Radiation Free Lakeland (https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/) and Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (http://corecumbria.co.uk/) sites.   The latter has an article about the quality and tardiness of the process of obtaining generic design approval which concludes:
The CORE website also has news that, even before the build at Moorside is scheduled to begin, it will be at least two years late.   The former site, Radiation Free Lakeland, is so comprehensive and has so much information that it is a bit difficult to digest it all in one sitting.  

Our favourite bits from that one include the 2014 letter from the Whitehaven News about the Sellafield Mafia as they are known, which confirms our views on the corrupting nature of the industry, and the role of the local and national politicians:  (https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/letter-from-sellafield-worker-exposes-nuclear-corruption/).   Although aimed at the dump consultation, the principles seem to apply to nuclear development throughout the area.   
This is followed by the way in which the hundreds of bore-holes currently being drilled were approved after decidedly limited consultation with local parishes and committees, except Copeland Council, who were too busy debating the impact of a single wind turbine, apparently.   The ultimate decision was made by a single, delegated council officer.   Democracy?

---

Political Inaction

We Told You So

In our earlier articles (now consigned to the Archived Pages section - see top of page) we have pointed out the vulnerability of nuclear sites to terrorism and attacks by air - including the use of drones.  

In an article in the Scottish Herald, 29/5/16, Rob Edwards reports on two reports that say exactly the same thing.   The reports suggest that not only would the authorities struggle to deal with the aftermath of an attack, but they are also failing to consider the potential threats seriously.   Yet, the article says, in October, 2015, a worker was reportedly marched off the Hunterston nuclear site in North Ayrshire after he was seen studying bomb-making websites on his laptop.   The report by Dr. David Lowry who is a senior research fellow with the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, USA, and a former director of the European Proliferation Information Centre in London, points to “disturbing” evidence that suspects linked to the Paris and Brussels terror attacks in November, 2015, and February, 2016, had files on nuclear facilities, and had been monitoring nuclear workers.  

The second report was for the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), and was written by Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent radiation scientist, and focuses on the stable iodine tablets that can prevent radiation poisoning after some nuclear accidents.

25/5/16
With the inevitable assistance of politicians and councillors, this picturesque (provided you don't look towards Sellafield's ugly structures) part of Cumbria is the target of a foreign consortium who wish to build a vastly expensive and risky nuclear power station.   Immediately adjacent to the existing Sellafield site - literally just across the road - the project will blight the Braystones and Beckermet areas.  

Even the seas off Braystones and Nethertown are to be spoiled by the installation of sub-marine inlets and outlets which will dissipate the heat equivalent of 2,000,000 three-bar fires into the Irish Sea.   NuGen quite happily agree that they have no idea what the impact will be on the marine and terrestrial environments.   Rest assured it will not be a beneficial effect.   However, even ignoring - if you can - that aspect, the question must surely be how the dissipation of such large amounts of heat into the environment can in any way reduce global warming.   Ah, sorry, as the planet is actually getting colder, we now have to refer to it as climate change.   The disposal of waste is also still an unresolved problem.   Let us not forget that some of these chemicals will remain too radioactive to handle for millions of years.   Even the oft-quoted half-life times fail to indicate the length of time before they become "safe", as many will require several half-lives to pass before they can be deemed to be non-injurious, even to the strange and misleading ethics of the nuclear industry.

For reasons which patently have no regard to the practicalities or financial viability of nuclear sites, but may have a lot to do with shares and personal aggrandisement, the whole national planning system has been changed to enable politicians to dictate what will be built where and remove the local residents' right to object.   Let's face it, the kind of money that is involved in building a nuclear power station and its required resources - where the sums are listed in £billions - must be hugely attractive for those of a less than honest nature.   Fortunately, as yet, they have not managed to abandon the principles of the Human Rights Act, so there are obviously grounds there for legal challenge.   Can it be just a matter of time before the rumblings about doing away with such piffling trifles as public opinion come to fruition and the state takes on Orwellian control? Nugen are now coming to the end of their mandatory consultation period over their proposals to build three Westinghouse reactors at the "Moorside" site.   The site extends from Sellafield to the perimeter of Beckermet.   It is obviously debatable quite how sensible is this proposal to gamble on never having an accident which will affect Sellafield and its great stocks of radioactive materials.

Last July we added our comments to NuGen's consultation process.   Hopefully it is a comprehensive document.   It can be found here:  NuGen Consultation Response.   As the changes will bring about increased traffic along the old Furness railway line, the problems involving use of the level crossing at Braystones station are incorporated in our consultation response as additional material by means of sample correspondence.

With the collusion of various politicians - local and national - and peers, it seems the entire west coast of Cumbria is about to succumb to nuclear development, regardless of logic, financial sense, geology, or practicality.

There are many points which we would like answers to - including those in our consultation document.   One additional question would be :

• How does the planned project fit with Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012.   The requirement (under Part 4, 10-1(c)(i &ii) is that when preparing their Local Plans, local planning authorities need to have regard to the prevention of major accidents and limiting their consequences. 

Also to be considered are the long-term need for appropriate distances between hazardous establishments, the population, or environmentally sensitive areas, and whether additional measures for existing establishments are required so that risks to people in the area are not increased.   Should a major incident occur at either Sellafield (which does have a certain history) there must inevitably be a risk of a domino-like impact on the projected plant, and vice versa.   Of course it has been deemed utterly impossible for both plants to suffer incidents simultaneously.   Leastways until it happens.

The National Grid suggests that it is far too expensive to bury cables, and that 150' high pylons are the only answer to get the power to London and elsewhere.   Yes, we can choose a design, and yes, they do allow a choice of route from three possible ones, but burial of the cables is not an option.   Yet the organisation has just tabled yearly results:  pre-tax profit rose 15% from the same period in 2015 to £3.03bn.   Adjusted earnings per share were up 10% to 63.5p, while adjusted operating profit increased 6% to £4.1bn and the company recommended a full year dividend of 43.34p compared with 42.87p the previous year.   (Ref.:  Common to most newspapers and news programmes.)   Is the pursuit of profit more important than the preservation of the environment and local amenity?   How much extra would burial of the cables cost when expressed in pence per kilowatt/hour over the lifetime of the programme?   (We have already pointed out that the only reason for the additional pylons striding across the landscape is the proposal to build Moorside.   Do away with that and the landscape can be preserved without any expense.)

One of the main planks of the argument for developing nuclear power has been "preventing the lights from going out".   Several years ago, at the time of the RWE application to build at Braystones, we reported the statement by the head of the National Grid, that there was no likelihood of the lights going out.   That statement was ignored, in typical "scare the public into submission" style that governments and politicians so like,   Unfortunately, perhaps by accident, the current incumbent of the Energy Minister post, Andea Leadsom, told a committee of MPs on 24/5/16 that there was no possibility of the lights going out.   (How many Energy MInister have we had in the last five years?)

Sadly DECC figures point to the fact that in actual fact, despite assertions by those who should know better (and in all honesty probably do!) that energy demand is rising, it fell again last year by 2%.   This means that overall the demand for electricity nationally has been falling for over a decade at more than 1% p.a.

The other main point, stemming from a meeting related in the book "Inside Sellafield", has been the impact of CO₂ on the environment.   The management of Sellafield decided that they would promote the idea of a link between global warming and emissions of CO₂.   Well, the strategy worked.   Yet few seem to ask whether the rise in CO₂ levels causes a rise in temperature, or whether, in fact, the rise in temperature causes increased CO₂ in the atmosphere.   Which is the horse and which is the cart?   It is noteworthy that most of the CO₂ producing processes utilised to produce nuclear fuel, manufacture the components for the specialised build demanded by nuclear plant and ancillary equipment, transport of materials, manufacture of specialised steel, etc. are all ignored.   DECC specifically dismiss anything which occurs outside the U.K.

We have always asked whether CO2 emissions are worse than plutonium, polonium, caesium, americium and all the other products of a nuclear reactor which always seem to have problems not leaking into the environment for some reason.   Of course, the mantra is now well established:  no animals are hurt, the leak was contained before any damage was done, and there was never any danger.   The head of the U.K. nuclear industry, in a propaganda sheet entitled Britain's Energy Coast, tried to tell the world that there was no melt-down at Fukushima, when all three cores had melted.   A complaint to the Press Complaints Council was upheld and a retraction had to be published.   The gentleman tried to pretend that he hadn't known there had been a melt-down.   They knew enough to work with Électricité de France secretly in order to synchronise a cover-up and limit press and television coverage, aided by the I.A.E.A. - until they got caught out by the press.   Most people think the I.A.E.A. is an independent and honest body.   However, its aims are plainly stated on its website:  To work with its member states and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies.

---

31/5/16 edited 1/6/16

The Times, 31/5/16, carries an article on how ministers in charge of the £18 billion project at Hinkley - deemed by rational people to be a rather large white elephant - refuse to say whether the deal is good for taxpayers.

David Lowry's request on behalf of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies under Freedom of Information rules, was turned down as it would "adversely affect international relations, defence, national security or public safety"   Not to mention the price of beans.   Sadly, even the Information Commissioner backed DECC' s decision apparently.   It does rather seem that there may be something to hide by DECC in terms of whether Hinkley is good value for money.   Actually, we think it is not.   Any more than the "Moorside" one is.   Are there similar terms and conditions, government subsidies and underwriting available to NuGen, too?   Or aren't we allowed to know that, either?

The organisation "Stop Hinkley" have just sent their newsletter, in that has a report which further illuminates the FOI request: Ref.:  http://stophinkley.org/StopPress.htm   (Newsletter for June, 2016.)

On Railway Lines

3.   The remaining nuclear power stations (PWR pressurised water reactors and AGR) should be shut down as they are a continuing source of radioactive pollution and waste, damage to health, and risks of accidents and terrorism.   [The Westinghouse AP1000 design for Moorside is a Pressurised Water Reactor - or PWR]

8.   Nuclear accidents require specialist treatment, so emergency services personnel need specific technical training to deal with such accidents as quickly and effectively as possible.

More Reliable Than Wind?

The one-time manager at Sellafield, Harold Bolter, wrote a book entitled, "Inside Sellafield".   We have made a habit of pointing out the section in this book - which presumably is a true account of events from the time - that refers to the methods proposed in order to counter the bad publicity the nuclear industry was (deservedly) getting.   In particular the pushing of the role of CO₂ in the alleged global warming.   (Subsequently changed to climate change.)   It was also decided that it was necessary to "capture the minds, if not the hearts, of younger children".   Obviously with the aim of inculcating them in the pro-nuclear doctrine.   (Something similar used to be referred to as brain-washing.)  

There can be little doubt that the aims of that meeting are now coming to fruition.   One local school, the West Lakes Academy in Egremont - about four miles from Sellafield - has the information that:
How about that for capturing the minds if not the hearts of youngsters?

One of the more satisfying pastimes is to look at the manipulation of the local community by Sellafield's managers.   The above publication is a good example.   Another is Sellafield Stories, which we mention elsewhere, and which is where the management speak and practical matters diverge.   Also interesting is the way in which critics of Sellafield can become its staunchest supporters when money is an issue.   Several of the more able wordsmiths have started off being concerned about the practices that have occurred at Sellafield, but then have been persuaded (by money?) to work on the PR side of things.   They then become so blinkered by their own propaganda that they think anyone who dares contradict them is (quote) from the soft, fluffy, green end.   Each of the managers tells how they have considerably improved things, completely failing to see that it is too late - the toxicity of the materials that were being discharged into the atmosphere and environment have not gone away, but will continue to cause illnesses and cancers for decades, perhaps millennia, to come.   Even if one takes them at their word - why should we? -  the Irish Sea and beyond have already received enough to stay contaminated till the end of time.   Every child has plutonium in their teeth as a result of Sellafield and atomic bomb testing.   At least 50 kg of plutonium has been discharged into the Irish Sea, along with caesium, americium, et al.   Sellafield's contamination has reached Nova Scotia and beyond, and round the Scottish coast to Scandinavian countries.   How marvellous that they have reduced the amount they are discharging, but that doesn't make it alright.

These people also seem to have a distorted view of democracy and integrity.   One ex-senior manager boasts that he knew everyone and everyone knew him, so if he wanted a job done he just picked up the phone to chief executives of county councils, senior politicians, and things like that.   He is quoted as saying, "I think the reason I was so effective [here] is because I'd created a huge influence network in West Cumbria."

Ref.:    "Sellafield Stories", Edited by Hunter Davies, ISBN 978-1-78033-299-4

Is it us, or is this a form of corruption?   The more so, as Sellafield was holding a number of purse strings.   Another of the managers involved in PR work came from television and seems to suggest that he was offered a job at Sellafield because he had been critical in his reports on Sellafield.   Once in their thrall he seems to change his opinion, and nothing is as bad as was made out.   Sadly, there is no room to mention his part ownership of, and work for, a private PR company in its role as adviser to the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership, one of the many quangos set up to promote nuclear in Cumbria.

Ref.:    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/23/gardeners-question-time-conflict-interests

The Sellafield/Seascale/Braystones areas are no longer suitable for promotion in tourist guides, leastways without a radiation warning.   Fifty or so years ago, Seascale's beach was packed so tightly with holiday-makers, brought by six or eight coaches and several very full trains, that there was hardly room for one to put down a towel.   Sellafield certainly put paid to that.   Not to worry, it is outside the Lake District so Cumbria Tourism with their short-sighted policies do not need to worry.   From Sellafield to Wastwater is only about nine miles as the radioactive seagull flies.   Happily, the radioactive materials all recognise boundaries and do not go beyond the National Park boundaries.   Strange, then, that stuff from Chernobyl managed to cross all kinds of frontiers to end up on Cumbrian and Welsh hill-tops.   How convenient is that?   What a strange coincidence, too, that those were the very same areas polluted by, er, U.K. nuclear sites.

At a meeting of Cumbria County Council not long ago, of the 50 members present, 31 had to declare an interest when a matter involving the nuclear industry or Sellafield was to be discussed.   Again, how does this equate to democracy?

All of which suggests to us that Sellafield's policies, as laid down by the likes of Bolter, have been fully implemented.  

---

In his book, "The Road to Little Dribbling", (ISBN 978-0-857-52234-4), writer Bill Bryson comments on the Hanford facility in Washington state.   He notes that the facility released millions of litres of liquid waste containing strontium, plutonium, caesium, and sixty three other dangerously toxic substances into the groundwater of the Columbia River basin.   Sometimes, he says, the releases were careless and accidental, but more often they were intentional.   He goes on, "The Hanford engineers did this and then shamelessly insisted the water was wholesome and clean, and cited tests on salmon as an example of how safe it was, arguing that a person would have to eat a hundred pounds of salmon at a sitting to ingest enough radiation just to reach detectable levels.   What they knew, but didn't say was that salmon don't eat when they are in the Columbia River."   He points out that the fish are returning to spawn, and don't eat when they are spawning.

Does this sort of behaviour seem familiar?   Has anything changed within the nuclear industry to win our faith in their openness and honesty.   Hardly.   Happily for our lot, the marine discharges were into the Irish Sea, and thus had more room to spread out, making it more difficult to discern where it had disappeared to - even if the scientists had any interest in finding it.   Nowadays, with modern methods, Sellafield's wastes can be detected in most of the waters from Nova Scotia to Sweden.   Even worse is that the site continues to dump radioactive materials, despite agreements, such as the London Agreement of 1972, which prevent dumping at sea.   The pipeline out from Sellafield continues to pump radioactive materials into the sea.   The agreement didn't mention pipelines.   Bryson points out that by the late 1980s, Sellafield had exposed the whole of Europe to more radiation than the combined levels of exposure from . . . all other nuclear sites, weapons testing, the Chernobyl incident, and packaged solid wastes."   Given that the greatest concentration is likely to be close to the point of origin, does it really make sense to be disturbing the soils and Irish Sea sediments to build another of these dangerous scientific dreams?

A while back we asked the Environment Agency why there were no longer any of the seaweeds that we remembered as kids on the rocks along the beach from Sellafield to Nethertown.   In particular the porphyria variety, which used to be collected by two ladies who lived on the beach at Braystones.   Several times a week the sacks of the seaweed were despatched by train to Wales to be made into laver bread.   Then the bakers discovered that Cumbrian seaweed was radioactive and contained sufficiently high levels of Sellafield's pollutants to make it unsafe to eat.   Unsurprisingly the practise ceased.   The official version, however, is that the ladies who collected it "became too old to continue".

We especially like Bryson's comment, "I am no expert, but it does seem on the face of it that human beings are not quite grown-up enough yet to be trusted with nuclear fuels."   In a Freudian slip, we almost wrote nuclear fools.

It does seem that the ultimate aim of scientists is the eradication of the human race.

The Times and the BBC News both carry the story of the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up Sellafield, which has increased by £5bn to £53bn, according to the National Audit Office.*   The price determined by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, in June, 2014, had risen again to £79.1 billion.

According to the BBC, Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which commissioned the report, said the cost hike was "astonishing."   Quite why she is so surprised is in itself surprising.   As an astute woman, one might have thought she would have seen the process for what it is.   A large number of companies are enjoying healthy profits for doing a poor job, and why shouldn't they prolong it as long as they can get away with it?

As is typical with nuclear promises, the forecasts are obviously made by people with rose-tinted spectacles on.   Whether they are talking about how safe things are, how nobody ever got killed by nuclear power, how much waste will be produced, how many people will benefit from it, or how much it will cost to clean up, or how efficient they are at doing their job, everything carries the hallmarks of excellent Blair-style spin.

Less than a year ago, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the people who decide who gets the lucrative contracts, assured us that the cost would be a mere £48bn and would be completed on schedule.   Fat chance!

The Select committee's report has noted that the work is also behind schedule

As a further token of their incompetence, the NDA awarded Nuclear Management Partners a £9 billion contract to clean the site up but, it seems, they forgot to provide a get-out clause, so the cancellation of the contract will cost ratepayers just under half a million pounds.   Rewards for failure anyone?   Value for money?   Mrs. Hodge's committee recommended cancellation of the contract a year ago, but the NDA knew best.

Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming when the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, NMP, and Sellafield Ltd. appear before the Committee on 11 March.

Even the (usually supportive) union has deserted NMP management.   According to the BBC report, Chris Jukes, regional officer of the GMB union, said: "GMB has been absolutely clear all along that the NMP model did not work at Sellafield.  

"Poor value for money, poor top NMP management and a lack of grip on key issues in an essential area for the UK energy sector, as well as the UK economy, have led to unbelievable decisions on expenditure."

Yet it has taken six years to get to this understanding!

The National Audit Office reckons the total cost of cleaning up the UK's 17 nuclear sites is "around £70bn"   (It had risen to £79 billion by June, 2014.)   Surely this begs the question of the true price of nuclear energy.   The Électricité de France deal which will surely be an albatross fo the U.K. for a very long period, is already going to increase the cost of electricity and that fails to take into account insurance and decommissioning costs, both of which will be provided by the taxpayer.

The Times points out that the “lifetime cost” of cleaning up Sellafield by the authority’s deadline of 2120 has more than doubled (actually, tripled!) in five years, from £25 billion in 2010. The NAO said that the authority had attributed the higher costs to “a better understanding of the scale and nature of the risks and challenges on the site”.   Is that a confession that they don't know what they were doing?   On the Sellafield News page there is nothing at all about the Audit Office's views, so, good impartial honesty, then.   No doubt many of the strangely dedicated-to-nuclear peers will come up with propaganda about why nuclear is so difficult, but so very necessary.

So, two more politicians have been accused of offering to influence democratic processes for private personal gain.   Both are experienced ex-ministers and, despite being accused by the media of having offered to "ask questions", or are reported to have insinuated that they are willing to use their contacts for the benefit of a private company and their own personal gain;  they say they have done nothing illegal.   That is as may be, but isn't this a corruption of the democratic process and thus, at the very least, immoral?   Are we expected to put up with these standards, or are we entitled to expect more?   Aren't MPs supposed to be making decisions which ensure the best outcome for everyone, not merely pursuing the ambitions of some private paymaster?   Even if an examination of the facts fail to prove a breach of the legislation or, on a much lower scale, some self-imposed political protocols - such as the Parliamentary Standards Committee (whose membership is comprised of:  5 Conservatives, 4 Labour, 1 Lib Dem, and 3 lay members) is it alright to say nothing is wrong?

Maybe there is a sliding scale of influence that can be bought?   The more a company can invest by obtaining an MP's interest (usually by inviting them to become a consultant) the more they can hope to manipulate important and far-reaching decision-making.   Presumably, too, the higher the rank of the poliltician the more they can charge for their consultancy services and the more the process of democracy will become distorted.   No wonder so many of the ex-politicians are awarded board memberships of the big companies when they leave office!   Rewards for past performance?

Over and over again the same faces appear, supporting some strange and irrational policies for no apparent reason.   Interestingly, just as did certain DECC officials, the lords and ladies of the land have a great interest in the future of nuclear:  both its expansion and its waste disposal.   How many of them have connections (current or anticipated in the future) in the industry or its civil or nuclear engineering works?   With peers of the realm failing to see the obvious drawbacks in becoming dependent on and beholden to foreign companies for finance and technological development, or to accept that even legal conduct can be immoral, what price the honours system that made them lords and ladies?   Perhaps it was always this way and it is just modern communications that permits Joe Public to see the facts.

On 25th February, 2015, a debate is to be held in the Moses Room in the Houses of Parliament.   Hosted by the staunchly pro-nuclear Baroness Verma, the idea is to get the nuclear dump listed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.   This will entitle it to be elevated to a development which requires no local input.   Local councils will be unable to control the development and the public will just be told what is going to be put in their locality.   The colour of the factory gates won't even be up for debate.   The Hansard record of the debate can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/150225-gc0001.htm#15022594000097

Even non-political people might recall David Cameron's talk of "localism".   Such an important concept that they had to make up a new word for the dictionary!   Others may recall being told that if any one of the triumvirate ruled against the dump being built in Cumbria then the whole matter would be shelved.   Naturally, that promise was made on the basis that a) the locals were so stupid as to agree, and b) that sufficient of the local representatives and press articles had paved the way for the people at a).   Even Cumbria County Council's refusal was not on the most obvious matters of pollution and inadequate infra-structure, but nonetheless they did refuse.   That was officially the end of the proposal for Cumbria, except that no other council was willing to contemplate placing the risks in their own backyard.   So the voice of democracy is only to be heard when it suits those in positions of power;  some of who's morals are demonstrably lacking.   Time for change as MP Zac Goldsmith and the Speaker John Bercow have both said.

So, one has to ask, what are the reasons behind this unflinching push for nuclear?   How many of the regulars are set for rewards, whether direct or indirect?   The daily rates for "consultations" with influential MPs seems to be around £5,000 to £10,000 per day, and even one comparatively small furniture company seems to see this as a worthwhile expenditure.   One has to wonder what might be on offer from the likes of the nuclear industry which sees many billions of public money spent each year.

Several years ago, Électricité de France managed to get DECC officials to agree an exorbitant figure for nuclear power generation, let alone providing just about everything the company might need to obviate risk to itself.   The figure was over twice the then current rate of other forms of generation, and was guaranteed for 50 years, index-linked, naturally.   In recent times the cost of energy production has fallen considerably.   Has this changed anything?   Nope, the good old British public will be required to pay through the nose for nuclear generated power regardless of its viability - commercial or environmental.

The advent of new technology brings both rewards and threats.   One of the latest fads is the use of drones - akin to miniature flying bedsteads, and usually having a rotor at each of its corners.   Hobby drones range in price from around £30 (including camera) to over £10,000, they are capable of spying on "sensitive" sites.   In France they have been spotted in ever-increasing numbers over government and nuclear establishments.   Attempts to catch the operators of these devices have failed.   Given their size and portability that is hardly surprising.   Even the heaviest of them only weighs about 5 kg (10lbs);  they can be controlled from up to around 2kms away;  may carry either still or video cameras, and use 14 channels to communicate with the controller.   The task of finding operators thus becomes almost impossible.

It is against the law to fly any machine within half a kilometre of any nuclear site at a height of less than 1 km.   So, catch me if you can, seems to be the idea.   What does it mean that people are willing to play chicken with the authorities?   As a bit of a lark, or prank, not much.   As a means for a terrorist to obtain up-to-the-minute detailed plans and photographs of a nuclear establishment, very sinister and extremely potentially very serious.   Taking photographs is not going to harm anyone, agreed, but what if the material gathered is given to those who do not have the nation's interests at heart?   How long before a drone is developed that can carry a more malicious payload?

7/11/13 further edited 12/11/13
Whether you are pro- or anti-nuclear, but nonetheless wish to protest against the despoilation of the beautiful countryside and further proliferation of the ugly nuclear sites, you will find this website of considerable interest: http://www.cumbriatrust.org/

The current propaganda suggests that there will be tremendous economic and social benefits to Copeland and Allerdale districts of Cumbria if the dump were to get the go-ahead.   Yet even the ex-Sellafield PR manager and MP for Copeland, Jamieson Reed, a major supporter of the nuclear industry, was quoted in The Times, 4/11/13, pointing out that "health services around Sellafield are suffering major cuts,  local courts and police stations are closing and major civic amenities are closing down".   Not much obvious in the way of benefits there, despite the passage of half a century, as people have tolerated the dirtiest and most polluting industry around.   Will any promises of future largesse - sorry, compensation - be better honoured?   Unlikely, we think.   Once they have achieved their objective the rest will become just rhetoric.   Just as interesting will be how far the tame geologists will go before acknowledging that the terrain is in fact unsuitable.   How much money will that take?   Or will they press on regardless, with large construction companies insisting that they can "engineer a solution" with their main goal being to line their own pockets with the prolonged profits that the government, once committed to this course of action, will be obliged to maintain despite the inevitable burgeoning costs and delays - or risk losing face.   Still, many of those decision-makers will have had the foresight to invest in the construction industry.

In the best traditions, being against the nuclear dump has provoked the plan's protagonists into ire, not least the local ex-Sellafield PR man, now (happily for Sellafield) the local MP, who has published statements about the trust's ambitions and questioned their motives.   Pretty standard stuff, really, but is this really what an MP should be doing - or is he supposed to be representing the views of all constituents rather than pushing for one small group?   Still, he didn't even have a Plan B for when things went awry with the multiple nuclear reactors proposed a short while ago.   Should that not have been  part of his brief if he truly had the interests of the region at heart?

---

7/11/13   further edited  12/11/13
Five years ago the politicians announced several criteria that would have to be met before any consideration could be given to nuclear expansion: If you believed the Liberal Democrats, as many did back then, there would be no nuclear development except over the dead body of one prominent member, who reiterated that stipulation at a meeting we attended in Westminster.   That was a stated policy which must have won them many thousands of extra votes, but a promise that went the way of so many others when that particular party ostensibly became eligible for a bit of a say in national affairs.

The latest announcement of an unpopular, subsidised development at Hinkley Point by Électricité de France using 50 year-old designs and financed by China, illustrates how well the criteria have been met.

There is still no plan or location approved for the disposal of nuclear waste.   Residents of the unique location in Cumbria having voiced their disapproval many times.   This time round the government consultation exercise is prefaced with the usual rhetoric about local opinions.   What in fact they have done, is to remove the county council from the equation - their objections to the proposals resulting in a no vote last time - meaning that all efforts to cajole residents can now be concentrated on just two areas:  Allerdale and Copeland.   One can imagine that if this exercise should fail the only people with any input will be the residents of Copeland, where most of the population are engaged in the industry and its suppliers.   If that fails, and opposition does seem to be mounting quite quickly according to letters in the local press, then the government will have to whittle down the eligible to those based around, say, Sellafield canteen.   Or perhaps consult just the local MP and his cohorts?   That way success is inevitable.

The scope of the consultation can be found here:  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239237/Consultation_Review_of_the_siting_process_for_a_GDF_FINAL.pdf .  Please feel free to appreciate the wonderful new jargon, like "The Learning Phase", "The Focusing Phase", along with old favourites like representative authority.   Whatever happened to good old English language?   Somewhat amusingly, one of the final criteria calls for a positive demonstration of local support.   Given that the area being focused on is Sellafield, then it would be very surprising if NMP and all the other greedy companies could resist the temptation to fund huge demonstrations with its staff.   What chance the small guy against such odds?   Like lobbying MPs, the people with the money have the most access and influence.   A good critique can be found here: http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ANDREW_BLOWERS_GDF_Siting_Consultation_Sept._2013.pdf

The DECC document goes on, in the best manner of a government department with a set objective - but very reminiscent of a wide-boy car salesman, "Beyond this point, any proposed development would, of course, remain subject to statutory planning and regulatory regimes, and their accompanying public and stakeholder engagement and consultation requirements."   Yeah, right, that's why the government have removed most of the rights to object to such major proposals.   What kind of say will residents have when politicians have given the go-ahead?   Precious little we think.   It may be worthwhile at this point to indicate that the proposed Nuisance Bill currently making its way through parliament will put an end to any form of protest which causes a nuisance.   Hmm.   Not, of course, that politicians would ever want to stifle criticism or protests . . .

Naturally, none of the cost burden for waste disposal will fall on those who wish to profit from nuclear development.   It will all be paid for by the U.K. taxpayer, ultimately for the benefit of private companies - most of whom have little interest in what would be best for the U.K.

It would be very interesting to learn how many MPs, their families and peers of the realm - especially those involved in the decision-making - stand to gain from nuclear development.   Some of them seem to have very close links indeed.

The Citigroup report, "New Nuclear - The Economics Say No", dated 9/11/09, was clear in the fact that nuclear was too expensive compared to alternative generation methods.   It is interesting, therefore to study the way in which the six major companies have manoeuvred to bring their prices in line with the promised subsidy which will be enjoyed by Électricité de France when/if the Hinkley Point reactor is commissioned.   Much grumbling by the politicians indicates either stupidity or, more likely, cunning.   It must have been apparent to all that the prices being demanded by Électricité de France would become the base line for all of them.   In the same way that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit becomes the minimum as well as the maximum speed in a built-up area.

Much posturing by Mr. E. Miliband about Labour fixing prices until 2017.   He seems to deliberately overlook the fact that the main price rises that will ensue once Hinkley is in operation will certainly not have come into play by 2017.

People are still pushing the global warming mantra and reiterating stories about the lights going out.   Whatever one believes about the former, the U.K.'s contribution, when compared to the likes of China and America, is minimal and any reduction even more so.   There should certainly be no need to stampede into an even more dangerous energy policy.   With regard to both matters, if a sensible and financially viable energy policy is developed and acted on then a reduction in CO₂ and a secure continuing energy production programme will result.   Sadly, that idea is not likely to line MP's pockets. It is apparent that politicians have once again waved fingers at the public in their efforts to secure benefits for themselves.   So many of the criteria have now been disposed of, it is now only a matter of time before the matter of a nuclear dump is resolved by ignoring the "localism" which has rejected it.   It is, after all, just a matter of whittling down the number of those to be consulted to just those who work for Sellafield and those who expect to gain as a result of a positive vote.   After all it would be a shame to waste the ground-work put in by those MPs who manipulated the parliamentary system (a gross abuse of parliamentary process - Michael Martin, Speaker) to ensure that insurance for nuclear incidents remains with the taxpayer, thereby making nuclear slightly more viable.

So, no waste disposal capability, no energy security, most equipment manufactured abroad, no secure source of raw materials, no local approval, 50 year-old designs that have never been completed on time or on budget,  and heavy index-linked subsidies to foreign companies.   Sounds good to someone.

---

Sellafield exists solely to service the needs of Sellafield and the nuclear industry - mainly cleaning up pollution caused by Sellafield.    Although the contrary illusion is maintained, Sellafield does not make a profit and thus has no spending power other than that provided by the tax-payer.   It is now just a £1½ billion a year drain on the public purse.   As it does not earn any money, the largesse spread (albeit very thinly) around the communities in Cumbria stems purely from central government.   Stories that Sellafield are to fund such and such a project are thus totally illusory - they are in fact just spending tax-payer's money whilst skimming off substantial payments for the companies and individuals involved.   Any other project could be funded in this way without the corruption and pollution of the nuclear industry and the local community would be a lot better off.

Generation of electricity for the National Grid ceased more than ten years ago.   Since then the site has been a considerable consumer of electricity and gas, the latter via the 168 MWatt Fellside gas-powered power station.

Although considerable quantities of radioactive materials have been discharged by Sellafield, as part of a deliberate policy or by carelessness or accident, the quantities being recovered from the beaches is negligible in comparison.

A recent BBC programme gave further food for thought   One of the most illustrative sentences being "Whatever you do, do not put anything on the ground."

Read the article here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24206028

The much vaunted "clean up" and the alternative, but not quite so graphic "decommissioning", of Sellafield does not mean the safe and complete disposal of nuclear materials.   It merely means the re-packaging (at best) of the contaminated material to a different location within the site.   There is currently no way of cleaning up radioactive material in the sense that it is rendered completely free of radiation and thus safe.   Some of the materials contaminated to a somewhat lesser degree are dumped at the Drigg site, where, apparently due to an oversight, illegally dumped higher-level contaminated materials were found by Greenpeace.   Other material is sent to landfill sites with no independent check on what it is that is being dumped.   Historically, of course, Sellafield management have a reputation for being open and honest.   (Ahem.)   Most recently, equipment designed to check the levels of materials due to be dumped was found not to have been calibrated and was, naturally, indicating that everything that passed through it was safe to dispose of in a normal landfill site.   How much radioactive material ended up being dumped in this manner is open to conjecture.   Other materials are handled by Studsvik in Workington.   The U.K. President of that company left rapidly around the time that a discrepancy of £1 million was found in the accounts.   The process that is carried out by Studsvik is basically melting down metals, adding waste radioactive materials and then selling it off to make belt-buckles, etc., in the hope that waste "diluted" in this way will become harmless.   Let's hope they are right.

---