Vittime del disastro di Chernobyl              Chernobil Victims

Deve essere stata una brutta sorpresa per il Segretario all’Energia degli Stati Uniti, Steven Chu, leggere la lettera indirizzatagli dal professor Ernest Sternglass. Una brutta sorpresa perché l’amministrazione Obama sta rilanciando l’uso dell’energia nucleare, perché il professore insegna Fisica Radiologica alla Scuola di Medicina dell’Università di Pittsburgh, ed è anche Direttore del Radiation and Public Health Project. Una brutta sorpresa anche perché Sternglass non ha usato mezzi termini nella lettera che, attraverso Chu, ha inviato a tutto il Governo: “Sugli effetti del nucleare sulla salute umana, gli scienziati hanno sempre sbagliato”.


 Si tratta di una dichiarazione molto forte, non solo perché viene da un professore emerito che è considerato uno dei massimi esperti mondiali nel settore della radioattività, ma anche perché si basa su analisi e dati che lasciano poco spazio ai dubbi. Sternglass invita anche Chu, e tutta l’amministrazione Obama, a prendere in considerazione l’idea di procedere all’eliminazione dei reattori e puntare sulle energie rinnovabili. La cosa che deve aver maggiormente sconvolto il Segretario all’Energia, è probabilmente il fatto che il professore è stato, negli ultimi trenta anni, un convinto sostenitore dell’uso dell’energia nucleare. Ed ora, proprio lui fa marcia indietro. Perché?

Secondo Sternglass, si tratta di “…un errore tragico e poco noto che è stato fatto dalla comunità medica e dei fisici, come me, durante i primi anni della Guerra Fredda, che ha avuto un ruolo importante nella crescita enorme dell’incidenza di malattie croniche come il cancro e il diabete, e quindi del costo dell’assistenza sanitaria nella nostra nazione”.

Quale sarebbe l’errore? È stato quello di “presumere che l’esposizione a radiazioni della popolazione conseguente al funzionamento dei reattori nucleari non avrebbe alcun effetto negativo sulla salute umana”. Invece, le misure effettuate negli ultimi anni da un gruppo di medici ricercatori di Pittsburgh, porta a conclusioni opposte: “Questa ipotesi era basata sulla nostra esperienza di mezzo secolo di studi che non hanno mostrato alcun aumento rilevabile nei tassi di cancro per le persone che sono state esposte a raggi X a scopo diagnostico.

Ciò che non è stato compreso è che gli elementi radioattivi creati nella fissione dell’uranio, non hanno prodotto soltanto un piccolo aumento della quantità ricevuta dall’esterno come dose naturale di fondo. Invece, le particelle e i gas prodotti nel processo di fissione e rilasciati nell’ambiente, provocano danni da radiazioni di gran lunga maggiori di quelli provocati dai raggi X usati a scopo diagnostico, poiché i prodotti radioattivi di fissione e gli ossidi di uranio sono inalati e ingeriti con il latte, l’acqua potabile e il resto della dieta, concentrandosi in organi critici del corpo”.

In pratica, il professore ammette che le vecchie misure di radioattività, e di interazione biologica, sono state fatte con i raggi X a scopo diagnostico. In pratica, con gli strumenti per le radiografie. Strumenti che hanno esposto i campioni non solo a dosi inferiori rispetto a quelle reali, ma anche a radiazione pura, e non, come avviene nella realtà, anche a isotopi di elementi chimici che non dovrebbero entrare in contatto con il nostro organismo.

“Così – continua la lettera di Sternglass – lo iodio-131 attacca la tiroide e danneggia la produzione di ormoni della crescita e favorisce il cancro della tiroide; lo stronzio-90 si concentra nelle ossa, dove danneggia il midollo ematopoietico, provocando la leucemia, nonché danni ai globuli bianchi del sistema immunitario che combattono le cellule tumorali e i batteri; il Cesio-137 si concentra nei tessuti molli come il seno e gli organi riproduttivi di maschi e femmine, e induce vari tipi di cancro in soggetti adulti, nei loro bambini, così come nelle generazioni successive”

Certo, il tutto viene fuori da una diffusa ignoranza che c’era soprattutto durante i primi anni ‘50, quando gran parte delle nostre attuali conoscenze in merito agli effetti biologici delle radiazioni appartenevano ancora alla fantascienza. Era l’epoca in cui i test nucleari su larga scala, soprattutto di tipo militare, molto più invasivi e pericolosi rispetto a qualunque reattore di una centrale, venivano fatti nel deserto del Nevada. All’epoca, non era ancora noto che gli effetti delle radiazioni sono decine o centinaia di volte più gravi per un bambino in età prenatale, ancora nel grembo della madre, e in generale per i bambini molto piccoli. Su questo argomento, il professore ha buona memoria, infatti ricorda: “Né si è scoperto, fino ai primi anni ‘70, che le esposizioni prolungate a radiazioni da prodotti di fissione che si accumulano nel corpo, sono molto più pericolose della stessa dose totale ricevuta in una breve esposizione ai raggi X”.

Il risultato di questa mancanza di conoscenze sta nel fatto che sono state sbagliate, per decenni, le misurazioni dei rischi biologici presso tutte le installazioni nucleari, militari o civili che fossero. Con misurazioni sbagliate, tanti funzionari governativi poterono, dati numerici (sbagliati) alla mano, convincere la popolazione preoccupata, dicendo loro che i livelli di fallout nucleare erano talmente bassi da non poter produrre effetti negativi. È stata l’epoca, ovunque tramontata tranne che in Finlandia e in Italia, del grande inganno “dell’atomo pacifico”, l’epoca dello spegnimento delle centrali a carbone un po’ in tutti gli USA, per sostituirle con “energia nucleare pulita”.

È stata l’epoca, ovunque tramontata tranne che in Finlandia e in Italia, del grande inganno “dell’atomo pacifico”

La lettera del professore continua facendo riferimento ad un tempo ormai passato negli USA, che però ricorda terribilmente l’attualità italiana: “Così si dette inizio ad un programma di costruzione di un gran numero di impianti nucleari che ebbero il permesso di scaricare piccole quantità di prodotti di fissione, comparabile con i livelli di ricadute atmosferiche dei test nucleari. (…) Pertanto, quando si è scoperto che piccole quantità di prodotti di fissione causano danni molto maggiori rispetto alle previsioni, (non solo leucemie e altre forme di cancro, ma anche parti prematuri, basso peso alla nascita e mortalità infantile), tali risultati furono secretati dal nostro governo per paura che essi mettessero in pericolo il valore di deterrenza dell’arsenale nucleare”.

Il finale della lettera, apre però una speranza – o meglio una strategia, una soluzione – che la scienza offre alla politica americana: “Fortunatamente, il recente, rapido sviluppo delle energie alternative permette di intravedere la fine di questa tragedia, dal momento che è possibile convertire i vecchi impianti nucleari in centrali a gas naturale. Questo può essere fatto con un costo minimo rispetto a quello necessario alla costruzione di nuove centrali, nell’attesa che le sorgenti alternative (eolico, fonti geotermiche e idroelettriche) possano prendere il loro posto.

Se la nostra nazione che ha costruito i primi reattori e le prime armi nucleari annunciasse l’obiettivo di eliminare gradualmente reattori nucleari a fissione, che producono anche il plutonio e trizio necessari per le armi nucleari, sviluppando la fusione nucleare e altre fonti alternative di energia non inquinanti, questo contribuirebbe a rendere più facile l’obiettivo dichiarato dal presidente Obama di un mondo libero da armi nucleari. Così sarà possibile guardare ad un mondo libero dal pericolo della distruzione della vita umana con armi nucleari da uranio arricchito o plutonio, che si producono solo in reattori a fissione, insieme con rifiuti nucleari altamente tossici, che restano letali per migliaia di anni”.

Non sappiamo se la politica americana saprà raccogliere il suggerimento proveniente dal mondo scientifico e troppo spesso, in passato, la politica non ha saputo interpretare per niente le spinte provenienti dal mondo scientifico, arrivando spesso a “imbrigliare” la scienza stessa. E, da parte sua, l’Italia cosa farà?

(Articolo tratto da http://www.decrescitafelice.it/)

http://www.stampalibera.com/?p=13036

Aussia Trade Unions ban members from working in nuclear industry

The prospect of nuclear accident, incident or even "routine" emissions is an unreasonable trade off for being able to boil a kettle. It's true that there is plenty of uranium left in Australia. Problem is, the Australians see it as the "new asbestos." So much so that Aussie Unions have banned their members on ethical and safety grounds from working in all aspects of the nuclear industry, from mining to power plants. The Electrical Trade Union is equivalent to our Unite (representing members in the electrical, communications, power,
manufacturing, education, hospitality, aerospace and food industries).

The unprecedented stand taken this summer by the ETU has been shied away from by the British press despite the ethical and practical implications for the future of the nuclear industry. The press has been complicit however, with nuclear apologists, in reporting on climate change as a moral crow bar to try to force new build. As with all good crimes there is a big fat cover up- nuclear power has the unrivalled ability to trash
not only the climate but also our ability to sustain life on earth. Peter Simpson ETU secretary has said: "We're sick of hearing about nuclear power as the panacea of global warming, we're sick of people sweeping safety
issues under the carpet." There are plenty of ways to produce sustainable electricity and energy efficiency while leaving uranium safely in the ground. The principled line drawn in the sand by the ETU is of great significance to all our futures and it cannot be ignored
yours sincerely,
Marianne Birkby Radiation Free Lakeland 8 Chelsea Court Milnthorpe Cumbria LA7 7DJ
http://www.getnoticedonline.co.uk/news/general-news/radiation-free-lakeland-backs-aussie-unions-nuclear-stance.html

The real costs of nuclear power

The Guardian      Thursday 17 June 2010

Paul Spence says the nuclear industry expects to pay the full cost of decommissioning a new generation of nuclear power stations (Response, 15 June). But his words about "our full share of waste management and disposal costs" were carefully chosen. The consultation document reveals that EDF considers their full share of these costs to be around 20% of the total.

As our report Nuclear Power? No Point! highlighted last year, nuclear is only responsible for 4% of the energy consumed in the UK. http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/reports/Nuclear_Power_No_Point.pdf

More energy can be saved by energy conservation measures in homes and businesses. Focusing on the nuclear industry takes resources away from building new renewable capacity, which, given sufficient political will, could provide more than enough electricity for the UK.

Darren Johnson    Green party spokesperson on Trade and Industry

• EDF's claim that they "have not asked for subsidy for new nuclear" is not all that it seems. The nuclear industry, owned by British Energy (in turn owned by EDF), will be receiving huge sums of windfall profits under government proposals for a floor price on carbon emission allowances. British Energy will greatly expand its profits for no increase in nuclear power production, all subsidised by electricity consumers.

Based on Royal Academy of Engineering analysis (a pro-nuclear source) a carbon floor price of £30 per tonne is likely to lead to electricity price increases of around 2.5p/Kwh. Given that British Energy produces
(according to their website) around 50 TWh per year, this would give them annual windfall profits of around £1.25bn a year. Many argue that the "floor price" would have to be higher than this to make new nuclear power stations profitable. A floor price of £50 per tonne would give EDF windfall profits (at 50 TWh a year) of over £2bn a year. Indeed British Energy and EDF are already receiving hundreds of millions of pounds a year of subsidy by another name through existing levels of carbon prices.

Dr David Toke    Senior lecturer in energy policy, University of Birmingham

• Paul Spence's defence of new nuclear power stations based on the assertion that they won't be a financial burden to the public ignores the taxpayer's liability in the event of a "new Chernobyl". No insurance company will offer cover for such an event or the consequences of a terrorist attack or any other less serious but still
unquantifiable risk. In its determination to sanction new nuclear power plants, the government is underwriting these risks; without such an undertaking no commercial company would even contemplate building a new nuclear power station. No hidden subsidies?

Majority of public would like to see more investment in renewables and not nuclear power

Nuclear power debate still divides UK public opinion

Ecologist   11th June, 2010

The majority of the public feels the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits and would prefer to see more investment into renewable energy, a new poll shows

Public support for replacing the UK's ageing nuclear power stations has changed little since 2006 when the Government announced its support for a generation of new plants, according to a new survey.

Just 38 per cent of respondents to a Cardiff University/Ipsos MORI poll believed the benefits of nuclear power outweighed the risks and only 39 per cent trusted the industry to run the plants safely.

The survey of 1,822 people across England, Scotland and Wales also found that just 39 per cent trusted the Government to adequately regulate the nuclear industry.

Researchers did find a slight increase in support for nuclear when people were asked about tackling climate change or energy security - 56 per cent would accept the building of new nuclear power stations if it would help tackle climate change.

58 per cent of respondents also believed that the UK needed a mix of energy sources to ensure a reliable supply of electricity, but said that this did not need to include nuclear power.

Renewables support

The vast majority of respondents wanted more investment in renewables, with 71 per cent saying promoting solar and wind power was a better way of tackling climate change than nuclear power.

'In terms of developing a low carbon energy economy for Britain, renewables are clearly favoured whilst nuclear power remains unpopular but may be accepted alongside the development of a range of other energy sources,' said research leader Professor Nick Pidgeon, from Cardiff University.

The survey also showed that there has been a decline in concern about climate change since 2005 (from 82 to 71 per cent) but that the majority (78 per cent) still believes the world's climate is changing. However, a sizeable number (40 per cent) considered the seriousness of climate change had been exaggerated.

http://wwwww.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/505141/nuclear_power_debate_still_divides_uk_public_opinion.html

Nuclear Power Plant in Gujarat, India

*Update from Mithi Virdi-Jaspara*

The Government of India & the Government of Gujarat have proposed the construction of a 6-8000 MW nuclear power plant in Mithi Virdi-Jaspara villages of Bhavnagar district of Gujarat. National Alliance of People’s Movements, Anu Abhyas Group, Bhavnagar District Gram Bachao Samiti, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Gujarat Lok Samiti have been spearheading the awareness creation campaign in 40 villages in the area for the last three years. Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd. And various Gujarat Government agencies have intensified efforts to set up shop in the area and people have steadfastly resisted all such attempts. A public meeting attended by over 7000 people had been held on 25th April ’10 to impress upon the Government that it should drop any idea of forcing the nuclear power plant on the people of the area.

Various Government agencies have yet persisted with their efforts. Most recently, police officers visited Mithi Virdi and Jaspara villages on 9tth June ’10 to persuade people to let officials undertake soil testing but they were firmly told to go back. The Gram Sabha (village assembly) gave them the same message that night.

Police again went to the villages on 10tth June warning that Government officials would carry out soil testing under police protection on ‘Government lands’ 11^th June morning onwards. The villagers decided to resist this nonviolently come 11th morning at the site (bang next to the infamous Alang ship breaking yard).

Government contractors along with a posse of policemen turned up at the site at before dawn at 5 am. As soon as villagers heard police and other vehicles drive into the area an alert (drum beats in each village) was sounded in the 5 villages likely to lose lands. Regular morning chores such water supply, animal-grazing, cooking & breakfast preparation etc. were suspended and over 3000 people rushed to the site. Government officials at first continued to try to force through the soil testing by unloading drilling equipment but people surrounded the site and refused to allow them to start work. After frantic phone calls to higher ups and everyone who mattered they finally relented and announced withdrawal and started reloading their equipment. So, that was round two to the nonviolent struggle where unarmed nonviolent men, women and children turned back State power (round one of course being the awakening).

An impromptu meeting was held after the police and Government officials left the site to announce that people’s resolve is only firmer now.

*From Mithi Virdi-Jaspara*
Chunibhai Vaidya Swati Desai Lakhan Musafir Krishnakant Chauhan Sagar Rabari Michael Mazgaonkar Rajni Dave Damyanti Modi Anand Mazgaonkar

Photos are at http://mozda.net/temp/jasapara-mithivirdi/  for the next couple of days.

When is a subsidy not a subsidy?

NuClear News No. 19

June 2010

1. When is a subsidy not a subsidy? When it has the word carbon in its name

2. Will there be a Huhne-inspired nuclear slowdown?

3. Will the lights really go out?

4. Non-proliferation – multi-national approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle don’t work

5. Opinion – does nuclear power limit climate change?

6. Westinghouse reactor-design problems

7. View on the Ground

8. Chernobyl health controversies continue as 25th anniversary approaches

9. Japanese attempt to rescue Sellafield MoX plant

10. Renewables are no joke

1. When is a subsidy not a subsidy? When it has the word carbon in its name

“Those are my principles and if you don’t like them . . . well, I have others.”   Groucho Marx. (1)

The new Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, told The Today
Programme on 13th May (2) that he may oversee a new wave of nuclear reactor construction, despite previously opposing such a move, if power companies go ahead without government subsidy. He said no new nuclear has been built without public subsidy for a very long time. If they come up with as feasible plan which genuinely involves no subsidy then this will be put through the national planning process. The Liberal Democrats will not vote against. There are an awful lot of ifs. The key point, Huhne stressed, on which there is agreement within the coalition Government, is the principle there will be no public subsidy. The most scandalous legacy of the last 13 years, he said, is we are sitting in the part of Europe with the biggest abundance of renewables but with the worst record. And the cheapest way is to save energy.

Here is a Liberal Democrat, said the Daily Mail, who has spent most of his life forcefully arguing against nuclear power – condemning it as a “tried, tested and failed technology which carries huge environmental and security risks” – who is now running a Government Department which is spearheading new reactors. The coalition agreement between the parties notes that the Liberal Democrats have “long opposed any new nuclear construction”, and will maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the Government to pass laws that make new nuclear construction possible. They will abstain in parliamentary votes. The Tories, on the other hand, are “committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations... provided that they receive no public subsidy.”

Immediately after the coalition was formed concerns were expressed about the political uncertainties caused by appointing a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State which might delay investment in new reactors. (3) But by the end of May, EDF Energy announced it had received sufficient reassurances from Huhne to continue planning new reactors.

Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF in Britain said the company and the Government are both committed to new reactors without subsidies and at a viable cost. (4) EDF says it is particularly pleased about plans to introduce a floor to the carbon price. The coalition has agreed to implement a floor price for carbon in the European emissions trading scheme, which some nuclear utilities have argued is essential to keep nuclear new-build cost-competitive. “21st century nuclear power needs a 21st century subsidy... no blank cheques this time - just an apparently green tweak to the emissions trading system, and voila!” says Dan Box on The Ecologist website. This will also favour renewables, but could make the costs of nuclear electricity far more competitive, even without subsidy. The extra cost of the floor-price, of course, will be passed on to consumers through energy bills. Huhne, it seems, may have ruled out using the public purse to fund the new reactors, but doesn’t mind asking us to do it instead. (5) Geoffrey Lean says the carbon floor price is likely to benefit renewables more than nuclear and any further measures or subsidies are ruled out. Nuclear power stations are unlikely to be built without them, and Chris Huhne, will not go out of his way to help them. (6)

The government is planning to “rig the carbon trading market” by setting a carbon floor price, said The Sunday Times. This will increase electricity bills for households and businesses, “transfer risk from the nuclear developer to the electricity consumer,” and, in effect, subsidise nuclear power by the back door, said Peter Atherton, head of European utilities at Citigroup. (7) New reactors will take years to build, but power companies could start passing on the costs of the higher carbon price to consumers through higher energy bills, as soon as legislation is agreed.

Setting a carbon floor price may not be as straightforward as it seems. The idea was explicitly welcomed across the energy industry, particularly by would-be nuclear builders, who, faced with a weak current carbon price and little regulation beyond the end of the EU ETS phase three, in 2020, may have trouble building a viable business case for such a vast, long term investment. A carbon price floor could solve their problem. But “the devil will be in the detail”.

Richard Gledhill, at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said: “Until we know how the Government is planning to do this and what the floor level will be, we just do not know how significant it is.” The biggest question will be affordability.If the floor price is set sufficiently high to act as a real incentive to develop new nuclear, it could quickly become unaffordable for the Government. But there are also issues about the unintended consequences. The measure runs the risk of undermining the whole EU ETS market. It may also produce windfall profits elsewhere. (8)

Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF Energy, who has campaigned for a carbon floor price, says the UK is now more likely to build new nuclear power stations under the coalition Government. (9) EDF says the Government’s pledge not to subsidise new stations won’t slow it down. (10) It has been quick to assure that it will not need subsidies to build new reactors, but as Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University, Stephen Thomas, points out “what the government and EDF believe constitutes a subsidy is very different to the usual definition.” (11)

Huhne says even support in the event of a disaster is out of the question: “That would count as a subsidy absolutely. There will be no public bailouts . . . I have explained my position to the industry and said public subsidies include contingent liabilities.” This is an important hardening of the position held by the Labour administration and could make it much harder for companies to finance the plants. (12)

Another subsidy proposal, which the new Secretary of State could stop if he wanted to, is the proposal to offer nuclear operators a fixed unit price for the cost of waste disposal. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) has written to Chris Huhne urging him to withdraw the previous Government’s current open consultation on a methodology for determining a Fixed Unit Price for waste disposal from new nuclear reactors. This effectively caps the cost to the operator and transfers the risks of cost overruns – a usual occurrence in the nuclear industry – to the UK taxpayer. In other words, it would be a hidden public subsidy for new nuclear build. (13)

However, having appointed Charles Hendry as the Tory Energy Minister responsible for overseeing nuclear policy, perhaps the Tories will be able to side-step the Liberal Democrat anti-nuclear Secretary of State anyway.

For once NuClear News agrees with Jamie Reed, the re-elected pro-nuclear MP for Copeland. He says: “Public money will inevitably be used to support the civil nuclear constabulary, development of the national grid, establishment of a deep underground repository and much else.”

Although we don’t agree that “The notion of no new nuclear without any public subsidy at all should be abandoned”. (14) For a full exploration of hidden subsidies to the nuclear industry see the December 2009 report by the Energy Fair Group: http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/private/nuclear_subsidies1.pdf

(1). Daily Mail 14th May 2010  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1278274/Chris-Huhne-Energy-Secretary-like-having-vegan-charge-McDonalds.html

(2). Radio 4 Today Progframme 13th May 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8679000/8679504.stm

(3). Telegraph 13th May 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7716666/Coalition-Government-Nuclear-plans-destabilised-by-Lib-

Dem-energy-minister.html

(4). Guardian 27th May 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/27/edf-nuclear-huhne

(5). The Ecologist 24th May 2010 http://www.blogger.com/goog_498446812
backhanded_way_to_subsidise_nuclear_power.html

(6). Telegraph 12th May 2010 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100039565/blue-and-yellow-make-green-as-the-new-governments-environmentpolicies-emerge/

(7). Sunday Times 16th May 2010 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article7127578.ece

(8) Independent 17th May 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/industry-backs-plans-for-carbon-price-floor-to-boost-nuclear-1975195.html

(9). Telegraph 15th May 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7728799/Coalition-a-boost-to-nuclear-says-EDF-boss.html

(10) This is Somerset 19th May 2010 http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/EDF-Hinkley-C/article-2177411-detail/article.html

(11) Thomas, S. Blair’s nuclear dream faces financial meltdown. Parliamentary Brief, January 2010.
http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/articles/1/new/mag/77/1037/blairs-nuclear.html

(12) Times 15th May 2010 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127202.ece

(13) New Nuclear Monitor No.21, UK Government Consultations on the financing arrangements for radioactive waste management and nuclear reactor decommissioning, NFLA, May 2010
http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/nuclearmonitor/NFLA_New_Nuclear_Monitor_No21.pdf

(14) Whitehaven News 26th May 2010
http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/mp-to-use-queen-s-speech-debate-to-oppose-cutbacks-1.712972?referrerPath=news


2. Will there be a Huhne-inspired nuclear slowdown?
Analysts are worried that Chris Huhne could slow down the process of building nuclear stations, according to The Telegraph. “Even if the Conservatives pressed ahead with new nuclear capacity, having a Liberal Democrat in charge of delivering it raises major concerns about whether it would remain a key priority.” (1) There remains a sizeable ‘threat’ that Huhne could force a time-consuming and costly public inquiry on Justification, for example. (2)

Former Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesperson, Simon Hughes MP, called for an inquiry ay a meeting organized by the Nuclear Consultation Group in Westminster in March. “It would be completely unacceptable”, he said, “for the government to rush through new nuclear in its last days in office without a public inquiry.” (3) Re-elected Liberal Democrat MPs, Tom Brake, Norman Baker and Steve Webb are also on the list of those who have supported calls for an inquiry.

Given that we are still waiting for an opinion from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation and the
Environment (COMARE) on the German KiKK study which provides irrefutable evidence that leukaemia risks are more than doubled among children living near nuclear reactors, the very least the Secretary of State can do is to order a Justification Inquiry.

The previous Labour Government launched two consultations on nuclear finance which are still open. The main one deals with a proposal to offer the nuclear industry a Fixed Unit Price for waste disposal. It sets out the methodology to be used to determine the fixed unit price and updates estimates of the costs of waste management, decommissioning and waste disposal. (4)

This effectively caps the cost to the operator of nuclear waste disposal and transfers the risk of cost overruns to the taxpayer, so represents a public subsidy to new reactors. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at New College, Oxford, says this effectively means utilities will pay the state to absorb the risks of handling nuclear waste. Gordon Mackerron, former chair of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), and Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University, have both attacked these plans, because, whilst the proposal is to cap reactor operators’ liability, we only have a vague idea of what a nuclear waste repository will cost. From past experience of the accuracy of nuclear cost estimates, and indeed judging by the cost escalations just since 2007, the proposed system could prove costly to taxpayers.

The industry should be required to pay the full commercial rate for waste disposal costs. If this proves to be far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new reactors, then utilities will need to generate electricity by other, less (financially) risky means, or implement efficiency measures (see below). There are plenty of opportunities to do this without requiring the taxpayer to accept the risk for such uncertain outcomes. Labour’s consultation should be withdrawn and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change should draft regulations which force the industry to shoulder their own risks rather than seeking to dump them onto the taxpayer.

(1) Telegraph 14th May 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/7720894/Coalition-government-Chris-Huhne-accepts-unpleasantnuclear-compromise.html

(2) Telegraph 13th May 2010 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100005630/britains-nuclear-industry-wakes-up-to-an-explosive-problem-aschris-huhne-moves-in/

(3) Liberal Democrats Press Release 11th March 2010 http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=We_need_a_public_inquiry_into_new_nuclear_says_Hughes&pPK=0b54ac58-ba3d-4ba0-81f6-325b30a16486&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+libdemnews+%28Liberal+Democrats+%3A+All+News+Feed%29

(4) For a longer briefing on these consultations see here: http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/nuclearmonitor/NFLA_New_Nuclear_Monitor_No21.pdf

3. Will the lights really go out?

A letter to The Independent by 30 academics says the suggestion that the lights will start to go out by 2015 unless we start on new nuclear construction now is not supported by evidence, in that it assumes that no new generation capacity of any kind will be built over the next five years. In fact more non-nuclear generation is already under construction and will come on-line by 2015 than is scheduled to go off-line. A further 1GW of new capacity beyond 2015 is being planned, permitted or constructed. Although this is predominantly gas-fired, the International Energy Agency has made it clear that gas is available in an increasingly global market to deliver reliable and affordable access for the UK.

National Grid has made clear, domestic demand for natural gas could be reduced significantly, and as anaerobic digestion biogas starts to come on-line, this will leave more gas capacity for the power sector (National Grid concludes that we can supply up to 18 per cent of UK gas demand from waste digestion). The real issue for gas supply is the lack of storage capacity, making us susceptible to market manipulation and threatened interruptions.

Three major new energy scenarios, from the European Climate Foundation, Price- Waterhouse Coopers (backed by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), and the European Renewable Energy Council, conclude that the EU could obtain both its electricity and even its total energy, from renewables by 2050 – with no nuclear power, and without significant extra costs. Indeed it could be cheaper long term – after all there would be no fuel costs. Wind power is already the cheapest source on the grid in some US states, and it, and the other renewables, will get cheaper still as technology develops.

There are viable and pragmatic energy futures: where offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources. Other energy futures include: large-scale networks for energy distribution; radical market innovations from energy supply to energy services, comprehensive energy efficiency, and the restructuring of our built environment to provide for more distributed and integrated energy systems. The fact is, we are approaching an energy future of rich and bewildering choice, where a variety of radically different options present technically and economically viable alternatives – a future where the nuclear option is the dearest and riskiest of gambles.

Independent 4th May 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-nuclear-power-1961532.html

4. Non-proliferation – multi-national approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle don’t work

As he was leaving his post as director general of the IAEA last year, Mohamed ElBaradei warned the world about ‘virtual nuclear weapons states’, countries that will develop weapons technology but stop just short of producing an actual bomb. This would allow countries to remain technically compliant with the NPT while being within a couple of months of deploying and using a nuclear weapon. His successor, Yukiya Amano, told the nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that more than 60 countries are considering using nuclear power to generate electricity and between 10 and 25 of these are expected to bring their first reactors online by 2030. (1)

The nuclear industry and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) need the non-proliferation veneer of so-called multi-national approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle (or MNAs) to legitimize their 21st century expansion plans for nuclear power. But increasing the number of countries with the potential to make nuclear weapons increases the chances that such weapons will be used in a conflict. The proliferation threat will not be resolved by MNAs, but through nuclear disarmament, a Comprehensive Fissile Material Treaty and the global phase out of nuclear power, says a new report by Frank Barnaby and Shaun Burnie for Greenpeace International. (2) The inalienable rights of humanity are to have their long term interests protected by their governments. Nuclear energy, with or without MNAs, puts that future under severe threat.

While much of the world’s non-proliferation effort is focused on uranium enrichment in Iran, plutonium barely gets a mention, yet a standard 1000MW reactor produces 50 bombs worth every year. While most plutonium is separated in large existing reprocessing plant, a small clandestine facility could be built in six months.

MNAs are being proposed to provide assurance to nuclear reactor operators that they will have access to nuclear supplies, in particular low enriched uranium, while at the same time discouraging them from developing their own nuclear fuel cycle facilities – uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities. A 2005 IAEA report on MNAs recommended a range of measures including developing supply arrangements with IAEA backing; conversion of national facilities to multinational control, and the construction of new facilities under multinational control. But many developing states see MNAs as making the non-proliferation regime even more discriminatory than it is already.

Barnaby and Burnie say the one MNA to have received approval from the IAEA Board is a Russian nuclear fuel bank at Angarsk. But this is being driven mainly by Russia’s desire to capture a larger share of the global nuclear market in order to fund the domestic expansion of its nuclear programme including fast breeder reactors. Russia wants to import thousands of tons of spent fuel for reprocessing and disposal, secure new sources of uranium, build nuclear reactors, and increase its share of the global enrichment market. By promoting itself as playing a positive non-proliferation role, Russia is seeking to create a mirage, but the consequences of the plan will be to make worse an already dire situation within Russia’s nuclear security, safety infrastructure and environment, whilst actually increasing the threat of nuclear proliferation.

(1). Greenpeace Nuclear Reaction 5th May 2010 http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2010/05/nuclear_nonproliferation_treat.html

(2). Barnaby, F and Burnie, S. Planning Proliferation: The Global Expansion of Nuclear Power and Multinational Approaches, Greenpeace International, May 2010.

5. Opinion – does nuclear power limit climate change?

In the June 2008 Eurobarometer report “Attitudes towards Radioactive Waste” 66% of UK citizens interviewed agreed

that an advantage of nuclear power is that it emits less greenhouse gases than coal or oil. (1)

The March 2010 Eurobarometer report on “Europeans and Nuclear Safety” (2) showed that when asked to what extent

they agreed with the statement that nuclear energy helps to limit climate change, only 49% agreed or tended to agree.

If you compare these figures with the 2006 Europeans and Nuclear Safety report the number agreeing has gone up by

4%, not surprising given the propaganda onslaught. But this is still a much lower figure than the 2008 figure.

The most recent survey says most Europeans still see nuclear energy as more of a threat than as a neutral source

of energy. Lack of security to protect nuclear reactors against terrorist attacks and the disposal and management of

radioactive waste remain the major dangers for most people.

(1). Attitudes towards radioactive waste, June 2008, Eurobarometer 297. (see page 21)

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_297_en.pdf

(2) Europeans and Nuclear Safety, March 2010, Eurobaromter 324 (See page 14)

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/2010_eurobarometer_safety.pdf

6. Westinghouse reactor-design problems

Nuclear reactor builder Westinghouse was expected to update the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) during May on its

progress towards proving its reactor design is safe for use in the UK. An action plan for the last stage of the generic

design assessment (GDA) of the AP1000 nuclear reactor was agreed in February. (1) During stage three of the GDA

the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII) raised concerns about the design of the concrete filled steel structural

modules used to protect the nuclear island containing the reactor building, fuel store and spent fuel store. It said there

was a lack of evidence that the new module design was sufficiently robust to protect key structures within the nuclear

island from external hazards. (2) Westinghouse says it is on track with the action plan which involves external testing

at Purdue University in the United States. But the work will take time and could lead to delays.

Meanwhile a dozen US environmental organizations have called upon U.S. nuclear regulators to launch an

investigation into newly identified flaws in Westinghouse’s new reactor design and to suspend the AP1000 reactor

from licensing and taxpayer loan consideration. The newly discovered design flaw is tied to documentation of dozens

of corrosion holes being found in existing U.S. reactor containments. (3)

Arnold Gundersen, former senior vice-president at Nuclear Energy Services PCC, and a 38-year nuclear engineering

veteran, has produced a 32-page technical report (4) which details a history of holes and cracks found at operating

nuclear plants. Such corrosion problems, if coupled with the experimental “passive” emergency cooling feature in the

AP1000, could accelerate and greatly increase the early release of radiation during an accident. Gundersen’s report is

backed by engineer and corrosion specialist Rudolf Hauser. “The proposed AP1000 containment design is inherently

less safe than current reactors,” says Gundersen. He continued, “Westinghouse has ignored the long history of

previous containment failures that indicate there is a high likelihood that the AP1000 containment might be in a failed

condition [one or more undetected holes] before an accident begins. The containment leakage problem is exacerbated

because the AP1000 is specifically intended to function as a chimney – to pull air up and release it through the top of

the building.”

Gundersen’s analysis shows that even a three-quarter inch hole in the AP1000 reactor building could result in a

large and unfiltered radiation release. The building is deliberately intended to move air and heat into the atmosphere

during an emergency. This intended heat removal via a gap between an inner metal containment and the outer shield

building – the very feature Westinghouse touts as its principal safety upgrade – would act as a chimney effect drawing

radioactivity directly into the environment.

(1). New Civil Engineer 6th May 2010

http://www.nce.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=5217325

(2). See Generic Design Assessment, NuClear News No.16, March 2010

http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo16.pdf

(3) NIRS Press Release 21st April 2010

No.19 June 2010

Page

http://www.nirs.org/press/04-21-2010/1

(4) See: http://www.fairewinds.com/reports for the engineer’s report and graphic illustrations of the chimney-effect during an

accident.

7. View on the Ground

Cumbria Wildlife Trust’s planning officer has described the site at Kirksanton as one of the most important areas in

the country for natterjack toads. The trust estimates the area is home to around 24% of the UK’s natterjack population.

Writing in the May edition of Cumbrian Wildlife magazine about plans to build a nuclear reactor on the site, Dr Kate

Willshaw said: “It is the most damaging proposal for wildlife in Cumbria that we have seen in the last 10 years”.

North West Evening Mail 11th May 2010

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/nuclear-plan-a-threat-to-wildlife-trust-expert-1.706573?referrerPath=home/love_going_out

Thanks to the wonders of You Tube we can now watch Jonathon Porritt addressing a packed meeting of the Stop

Hinkley campaign. A new nuclear power station at Hinkley point is not needed, he said, and would leave an

unacceptable legacy to future generations.

YouTube April 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RlacFBIlew

Western Daily Press 18th March 2010 http://stophinkley.org/NewsPages/news100318WDP.htm

Stop Hinkley Press Release 17th March 2010 http://www.stophinkley.org/PressReleases/pr100317Porritt.htm

A planning application by EdF to dig twenty trenches close to the village of Shurton has been turned down by West

Somerset District Council. Permission for the trenches was requested by EdF in order to ascertain the nature and depth

of the soil above rock. The planning committee threw out the application saying that there was no justification for so

many trenches especially so near to the village.

Stop Hinkley Press Release 6th May 2010 http://www.stophinkley.org/PressReleases/pr100506.htm

The anticipated date for the Hinkley C planning application to the Infrastructure Planning Commission has slipped

by four months from 2nd August to 1st December. This is the second delay in the application which was originally

expected at the beginning of July.

Stop Hinkley Press Release 16th May 2010 http://www.stophinkley.org/PressReleases/pr100516.htm

Augean have appealed against Northamptonshire County Council’s refusal to grant the Company planning permission

to dispose of radioactive waste at the Kings Cliffe landfill site.

Northamptonshire County Council 17th May 2010

http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Environ/planning/planapps/Pages/CurrentAppeals.aspx

Damian Collins, the new Tory MP for Folkestone and Hythe, has taken over campaigning for a Dungeness C where

Michael Howard left off. He says new power station at Dungeness could create thousands of new jobs. Of the eleven

sites originally nominated, Dungeness was the only site which the Draft National Policy Statement proposed to drop.

Any new reactor on the proposed site would need to be built further back from the coastline to enable adequate sea

defences to be put in place which in turn would destroy the shingle ridges which are the subject of strict environmental

protection. Natural England made a strong case for the protection of the fragile eco-system at Dungeness, as did

RSPB.

Romney Marsh Times 22nd May 2010 http://www.romneymarshtimes.com/2010/05/my-priorities.html

No.19 June 2010

Page

8. Chernobyl health controversies continue as 25th anniversary approaches

Calls have been made for comprehensive studies into the continuing health effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster

after a rise in birth defects was identified in one of the regions most affected by the catastrophe. The findings,

published in Pediatrics, are in stark contrast with a major, but highly criticised, 2005 study by WHO and other groups,

which suggested that there was no evidence of an increased risk of birth defects in areas contaminated by the accident.

The author told The Lancet: “The official position is that Chernobyl and birth defects are not connected. That position

needs to be reconsidered at the very least.” (1)

Chernobyl’s adverse effects are examined in a new book which summarises hundreds of studies demonstrating health

effects in humans, animals and plants. The authors conclude that the health and environmental consequences of the

Chernobyl disaster are much larger than previously estimated. Exposures to affected people are actually increasing.

Collectively, the studies suggest significant risks to those exposed to relatively low levels of radioactivity in the

environment. (2)

(1). The Lancet 24th April 2010 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960605-8/fulltext

(2) Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy

of Sciences), Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko (Editors). Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger

(Consulting Editor). For a review by Dr Ian Fairlie see: http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/reviews/review06.php

9. Japanese attempt to rescue Sellafield MoX plant

The nuclear facility we described as “Blair’s Folly” in NuClear News No.6 might be saved by the Japanese. The

only nuclear facility given the go-ahead by the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 – the Sellafield MoX

Plant (SMP) - has been an economic and technical failure and a constant reminder of why the nuclear industry has

become notorious for making wildly exaggerated claims and should be should treated with extreme scepticism and

mistrust. (1) Designed to manufacture 120 tonnes of mixed plutonium and uranium oxide fuel every year, for overseas

customers, the plant has produced a total of little over 10 tonnes in 8 years of operation at a cost to the taxpayer of

more than £1bn. (2)

Now the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has announced that contracts with SMP from 10 Japanese power

companies have been secured. But the deal is far from being ‘done and dusted’ and will be entirely dependent on the

installation of new equipment and extensive modifications to the plant, all of which will be paid for by the Japanese.

When the plant finishes the German order it is currently working on it will undergo a full clean-out, followed by

modification and installation of new equipment, and then be re-commissioned.

Sellafield’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) secured orders thirty years ago from Japan amounting to

2864 tonnes of spent fuel for reprocessing. From the reprocessing of this fuel, some 12 tonnes of plutonium have

been recovered and stockpiled at Sellafield. It is the intention of the Japanese companies to convert all 12 tonnes of

plutonium into MOX fuel at SMP. (3)

Meanwhile, details of a troubled shipment of vitrified High Level Waste (HLW) from Sellafield to Holland earlier

this year have emerged. Operators of the nuclear cargo vessel fleet International Nuclear Services (INS) provided

some clarification as to why the sailing from Barrow of the Atlantic Osprey – already loaded with one transport flask

containing 28 canisters of vitrified HLW and scheduled to leave port on 11th March – had to be delayed by 24 hours,

and why it then took the ship almost two days longer than expected to reach the Dutch port of Vlissingen with its

hazardous cargo.

Apparently, as the HLW was loaded onto the Atlantic Osprey, a similar consignment had just arrived in Japan but

it was found that the contents of the transport flask did not fully tally with the official paperwork – an unspecified

number of canisters being ‘out of position’ within the holding channels of the transport flask. After consultation

with its overseas customers and Sellafield, and having obtained clearance from the UK’s Department for Transport,

the Atlantic Osprey was allowed to leave Barrow on the evening tide of the 12th March. Arriving four days later in

Vlissingen (16th March), some Dutch HLW canisters were also found to be out of position within the transport flask.

But this doesn’t explain why a voyage that should have taken little more than 2 days, actually took 4 days.

Martin Forwood of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment said: “Swanning about aimlessly for hours

close to the busy English channel shipping lanes with a highly radioactive cargo on board cannot be reconciled with

No.19 June 2010

Page

the accepted principle that delivery of such materials is effected without undue delay.. I don’t believe we’ve been told

the whole truth about this part of the voyage, and further questions need to be asked”. (4)

(1). Independent 7th Apr 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jean-mcsorley-a-staggering-waste-of-taxpayers-money- 1664429.html

(2) Independent 7th April 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/a-1631bn-nuclear-white-elephant-1664427.html

(3) CORE Press Release 13th May 2010

http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=280

Whitehaven News 13th May 2010

http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/japanese-deal-may-save-1-000-mox-jobs-1.707306?referrerPath=home

(4) CORE Press Release 11th May 2010

http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=279

10. Renewables are no joke

Damian Reece, writing in The Telegraph was pleased that the proposed new reactors made it into the Coalition

Government’s agreed programme, but, he said the “document also contained one ludicrous sop to the Lib Dems ...

which is to seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, meaning wind. The target is already an

extra 30 gigawatts (equivalent to half the nation’s winter demand) over 10 years. To set it even higher is laughable

and starts to make a mockery of what is otherwise a deadly serious policy issue.” Raising the wind power target is, he

said, “a joke”.(1)

The coalition agreement certainly seeks to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, but this does not

necessarily mean wind. In fact the agreement says nothing to indicate such a conclusion. It does, however, mention

community-owned renewables, feed-in tariffs and anaerobic digestion. Renewable targets could be raised by

implementing a much more ambitious programme to promote small-scale renewables and microgeneration.

The previous Government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan only expected two of the 30% renewable target to come

from small-scale renewables - whereas the solar PV industry alone expects to provide 12% across Europe. The Energy

Saving Trust says we could provide 30-40% of UK electricity demand with microgeneration by 2050, implying a

contribution of around 10% by 2020. (2) The difference between 2 and 10% would be enough to save us having to

replace our nuclear reactors. The National Grid says we could supply up to 18% of UK gas demand from anaerobic

digestion. (3)

A study undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group for the Offshore Valuation Group suggests that Britain could not

only keep the lights on but could also produce a surplus of electricity by 2050 from marine energy. (4) Currently the

lion’s share of renewable capacity is allocated to fixed wind turbines, with small amounts allocated to tidal stream and

wave power. The study predicts that floating wind turbines have the most potential, possibly being able to generate

1,533 terawatt hours a year; 2,100 terawatt hours would have been enough to power the UK six times over in 2009.

There are huge challenges to hit the levels outlined in the report. There are issues of capacity in the industry for the big

builds, especially with some of the projects further offshore, at a time when finance is tough to come by. (5)

The Scotsman described marine energy as a windfall within Scotland’s grasp which could power the country seven

times over by 2050. (6) Meanwhile the Scottish Government earmarked 25 new sites for offshore wind development

after 2020. The locations were revealed in the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Development Plan for

Offshore Wind, which was published for consultation. The report also paved the way for the next step in developing

the ten existing sites, allocated by the Crown Estate to energy firms last year. (7)

A new prototype wave power machine was unveiled by Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond. The Vagr Atferd,

which can produce 750kW, was manufactured by the Leith-based firm Pelamis Wave Power (PWP) for E.On. The

device’s development and construction was part funded by the Carbon Trust. It will now be transported to Orkney,

where it will tested for three years to prepare it for commercial use. (8) Ten marine renewable projects with the

potential to power almost a third of Scotland’s homes were granted leases in the Pentland Firth earlier this year by the

Crown Estate. The leasing scheme - the first initiative of its kind in the world – has paved the way for the embryonic

marine energy sector to take off in Scotland. It could result in 1,000 wave and tidal energy devices being installed.

No.19 June 2010

Page 10

The seven winners ranged from global utility giants including Eon, Scottish & Southern Energy and ScottishPower to

small Scottish renewables firms such as Pelamis and Aquamarine Power, which is also based in Edinburgh. (9)

Meanwhile, at the other end of the United Kingdom Plans, Cornwall is trying to position itself as a world leader in

renewable energy. Cornwall Council’s Green Cornwall initiative, which was launched in February, detailed ambitious

projects to make the county a pioneer in green technology. The latest project will see the council install 130 solar

photovoltaic panels on the roof of New County Hall in Truro. (10)

A public consultation has begun for a 15-acre “energy farm” on a green-field site near Wadebridge, Cornwall. A local

farmer has raised £4.5m of private investment to construct the first of what could be 10 similar sites across Cornwall

and the Isles of Scilly, which, if all built, would triple the UK’s current solar generating capacity. (11)

A £42 million “Wave Hub” project is being developed by the South West Regional Development Agency as a key part

of the West Country’s status as the UK’s first Low Carbon Economic Area. The Wave Hub will be the world’s largest

test site for wave energy technology. By building a grid-connected socket on the seabed, 16 kilometres off the coast of

Cornwall, wave power devices can be connected to the grid and have their performance evaluated. (12)

(1). Telegraph 21st May 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7747436/Coalition-plan-to-raise-wind-power-target-is-a-joke.html

(2). See “Long Live the Local Energy Revolution”, NuClear News No.9

http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo9.pdf

(3). See “Green Gas Plan” NuClear News No.8

http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo8.pdf

and Independent 4th May 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-nuclear-power-1961532.html

(4) Guardian 19th May 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/19/wind-wave-power-north-sea

(5) Independent 20th May 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britains-offshore-renewable-energy-worth-a-billion-barrels-of-oil-and-

145000-new-jobs-1977531.html

(6) Scotsman 20th May 2010

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Renewables-will-power-the-country.6306699.jp

(7) Scotsman 20th May 2010

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/wind-power/Huge-plans-for-offshore-wind.6306709.jp

(8) BBC 18th May 2010

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8689095.stm

Scotsman 19th May 2010

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/600ft-39sea-snake39-to-harness.6303096.jp

(9) Scotsman 19th May 2010

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/alternativeenergysources/A-third-of-homes-to.6303230.jp

(10) Watch the installation in progress. http://vimeo.com/11926135

Western Morning News 25th May 2010

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/environment/Cornwall-goes-green-solar-panels-installed-county-hall/article-

2209859-detail/article.html

(11) Guardian 18th May 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/18/solar-farms-cornwall-silicon-vineyards

(12) Western Morning News 18th May 2010

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Wave-Hub-test-sea-power/article-2171439-detail/article.html

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/informare-per-resistere/nucleare-in-usa-la-scienza-fa-mea-culpa/401144286266

Nuclear Banks

http://www.nuclearbanks.org/

Platts 5th Annual European Nuclear Power conference will now take place at the Millennium Hotel London Mayfair.

Fears surrounding security of supply, fossil fuel price volatility and increasingly tighter climate change goals at the international level are fuelling the resurgence in nuclear power globally. In Europe, it is widely predicted that demand will outstrip supply long-term if the regions’ ageing infrastructure remains neglected. The ability to create a stable and significant clean baseload has firmly placed nuclear power back on the table for policy makers and utilities alike.

What about uranium supplies? How long will they last?
How can you call nuclear power clean when it is creating huge amounts of highly radioactive waste?

If the industry is to fulfil its potential and seize a larger share of the European energy mix — many challenges need to be addressed. The industry’s capacity to build and develop a competitive supply chain infrastructure and workforce as well as achieving financial value and public support are paramount to its momentum. Doubts surrounding policy direction and carbon price continue to affect long term planning for the industry.

For carbon price read government subsidy. They cannot build new nuclear power stations without subsidies, either from individual governments or from the EU.

Building on the success of previous years, Platts 5th Annual European Nuclear Power: Prices, Policy and Projects conference will continue to assemble and showcase those organisations which are leading Europe’s nuclear revival and those supporting it. Leading operators, project developers, policy makers, observers and financiers will be brought together to debate the challenges faced from policy to finance, discuss and review nuclear projects in their various stages and look to provide attendees with a practical overview of the industry now and moving forward.

Platts 5th Annual European Nuclear Power: Prices, Policy and Projects will continue to:

•Attract over 200 leading industry professionals from 117 different companies and 23 countries
•25+ industry leading speakers from Europe’s leading utilities, project developers, technology providers, policy makers, regulators, financiers, NGO’s and observers
•Provide an unrivalled market overview from utility plans to project challenges.
•Present the latest in new build case studies
•Offer excellent networking opportunities

This year will explore:

•Industry leading perspectives: From vision to implementation
•Delivering a low carbon energy mix and nuclear's role
•European power mix: Understanding the current and preparing for the future regulatory environment
•European and international nuclear power plant case studies: Lessons learnt and challenges remaining
•Creating an adequate, competitive and value driven financial framework for European nuclear new build
•Developing Europe's nuclear value chain: Cost management, risk allocation and skills development
•Public education and awareness: Justifying new nuclear
•Reinvigorating the academic supply chain and reversing the trend
•Carbon, cost and consequences: The carbon price and its impact and importance to the nuclear momentum

2010’s speaker faculty includes:
•Daniel Roderick, Senior Vice President, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
•Jörn-Erik Mantz, Vice President Nuclear New Build, RWE Power; Member of Board, Horizon Nuclear Power
•Philippe Herve Du Penhoat, Deputy Head of Financial Strategy, EDF
•Francesco de Falco, Chief Executive Officer, Sviluppo Nucleare Italia
•Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, UK Select Committee Science and Technology, Vice-Chair, All Party Group Energy Studies and Chair, Nuclear Industry Association
•Mark Higson, Chief Executive Officer, Office for Nuclear Development, Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), UK
•Dr. Michael Micklinghoff, Chairman, Cordel Group (Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing), World Nuclear Association and Senior Vice President, New Nuclear Development/Projects, E.ON Kernkraft
•Yves Crommelynck, Director Development and Project Support, Nuclear Activities Division, GDF Suez
•Greg Evans, Head of Nuclear, Centrica
•Humberto Werdine, Director, New Nuclear Power Plants, Iberdrola Engineering and Construction
•Jorma Kotro, Senior Advisor, Fortum Nuclear Services
•Kaija Kainurinne, Head of Brussels Office, Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO)
•Ali Etemad, Executive Vice President, Vattenfall Nuclear Fuel
•Dr. Rita Bowser, Managing Director - UK AP1000 Delivery Team, Westinghouse
•Jimmy Wang, Vice General Manager, China Nuclear Power Engineering Co., (A CGNPC subsidiary)
•Luc Resteigne, Executive Vice President Nuclear, Tractebel
•Colette Lewiner, Global Energy, Utilities and Chemicals Leader, Capgemini
•Didier Bienfait, Vice President, Nuclear Business, Bureau Veritas
•Kathie Child-Villiers. Managing Director, Power and Utilities, Resources and Energy Group, HSBC
•Mark C. Lewis, Managing Director, Commodities Research, Global Carbon Markets, Deutsche Bank
•Darryl Brown, Partner, Gowlings
•Peter Faross, Director. Nuclear Energy, DG TREN, European Commission
•Andrii Gritsevskyi, Energy Systems Analyst, Planning and Economic Studies Section, Department of Nuclear Energy, International Atomic Energy Agency
•Kevin Allars, Director for Nuclear New Build Generic Design Assessment, HSE
•François Nguyen, Senior Policy Advisor - Electricity Markets, International Energy Agency (IEA)
•Jean-Claude Gauthier, Director, ENELA
•Dr. Paul Dorfman, Nuclear Consultation Group and Senior Research Fellow, University of Warwick
•Mark Johnston, Coordinator, Power Plant CO2 Standards, European Policy Office, WWF

Past delegates included:

•ABB Ltd
•L’Usine Nouvelle
•Accenture GmbH
•Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
•Accord Nuclear Resources Management LLP
•Lehman Brothers
•AEOI
•LEO LT
•AF Colenco Ltd
•Les Echos
•ALSTOM Power GPS
•Mace Ltd
•ANSTO
•Macquarie Securities
•AREVA Group
•Mammoet Global B.V.
•ARMz Uranium Holding Co.
•Mammoet USA Inc
•Ashurst LLP
•Marsh S.A.
•ATB Riva Calzoni S.p.A.
•McCloskey's Nuclear Business
•ATMEA
•McGraw Hill Companies
•Atomstroyexport JSC
•McKinsey & Company Inc.
•Babcock International Group
•Mikhailov & Partners Strategic Communication Management
•BAE Systems
•Mirion Technologies - RMS Division
•Barclays Capital
•Mitsubishi Corporation UK PLC
•Bechtel Power Corp
•Montel Powernews
•BKW FMB Energy Ltd
•Morgan Stanley
•Bloomberg
•National Skills Academy for Nuclear
•BNP Paribas
•Naturagas Energia Comercializadora, S.A.U.
•BNS Nuclear Services Ltd
•New Energy Finance
•BP Alternative Energy
•NOK
•British Energy Group
•Norwest Holst Ltd
•Bureau Veritas
•Nuclear Energy International
•Business and Economics
•Nuclear Engineering International
•BusinessWeek
•NuclearMarket
•Buzulukskiy Branch SwLL Orenburgskaya Oil Company
•OECD / NEA
•C.E.A.
•OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
•Calyon
•OSC-American Embassy
•Capgemini
•Paul C. Rizzo Associates inc
•CB&I
•PennWell Global Energy Group
•CEA / International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) / The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
•PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA
•CEA Centre de Saclay
•PHOTONIS
•CEREC
•Platts
•CEZ a.s.
•Polartest Oy

•CH2M Hill

•Press Trust of India (Premier News Agency)

•Chubu Electric Company Inc

•Primier Project Limited

•CM - CIC Securities, European Securities Network (ESN)

•Project Finance International

•Cogent Sector Skills Council

•Purple Mountain Ventures, Inc.

•Coyne et Bellier

•RBC Capital Markets

•Dow Jones Newswires

•Rhodia Energy Services

•E.C.L.

•Rio Tinto Uranium

•E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

•Roquette

•EDF Energy

•RWE Power AG.

•Edison SpA

•Saipem S.p.A.

•EGL - Elektrizitätsgesellschaft Laufenburg AG

•Salzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes GmbH

•Electrabel

•Shaw Group

•Elster-Instromet NV

•Sheffield Forgemasters International Ltd

•Embassy of France

•Shell Gas & Power International B.V.

•Emerson Process Management

•Siemens AG

•ENBW Kernkraft GmbH

•Siempelkamp Nukleartechnik GmbH

•Enel - Slovenskie Electrarne

•Smith Institute

•Energy Industries Council

•Société Générale Corporate & Investment Banking

•Energy Observer Magazine

•Society of Energy Professionals

•ENI SPA

•Solvay S.A.

•Enrichment Technology Co

•SPE SA

•EON France SAS

•Standard & Poor's

•EON UK

•Star Capital Partners Limited

•EPC

•Stratinvestru

•Equipos Nucleares

•Swiss Nuclear Forum

•Ernst & Young Business Advisory

•System Consulting Zrt

•European Commission

•Tashkent State Technical University

•European Energy Review

•Técnicas Reunidas, S.A.

•Exelon Generation

•Telcabo Ltd

•Fennovoima

•The Burgundy Nuclear Partnership (NBP)

•First Reserve International Limited

•The IET

•Fluor Nuclear Power

•The Japan Steel Works

•Fortum Corporation

•The Shaw Group

•French Trade Commission

•The Society of Energy Professionals

•GDF Suez

•Thermo Fisher Scientific

•GE Energy Products France SNC

•Thomson Reuters

•GE Hitachi

•TOTAL

•Germanischer Lloyd Industrial Services GmbH

•Tractebel Engineering

•GMP Capital Management B. Limited

•TVEL Corporation

•Greenpeace

•UBS

•Grupo Isolux Corsãn

•UK Monitor

•Hayward Tyler Ltd

•UKAEA

•Helsingin Sanomat

•United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA)

•Hungarian Energy Office

•University of Greenwich

•Iberdrola Ingeniería y Construcción

•University of Massachusetts Lowell

•IBM

•Urenco Enrichment Company Ltd

•IEA

•URS

•Institution of Mechanical Engineers

•US Dept of Energy (NE-45)

•Intergraph France

•Ux Consulting Company LLC

•International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

•VAE (Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant)

•Invensys Process System

•Valtimet

•ITER Organization

•Vattenfall

•JAL Consulting

•Ventyx

•Japan Steel Works

•Vinci Construction Grands Projets

•JRC - European Commission

•VINCI CONSTRUCTION GRANDS SPROJETS

•Kazatomprom

•Westinghouse

•KCI Publishing

•World Nuclear Association

•Worley Parsons Europe Energy Svcs Ltd

For more information about the conference, contact:
Stacey Knox
Tel: +44-20-7176-6226
stacey_knox@platts.com

Oldbury Nuclear Power station will continue running next year

OLDBURY nuclear power station is set to continue operating into next year despite previous plans to shut it down within months, it has emerged.

Officials are requesting a "fairly short" extension to its lifespan, which would generate cash that could be off-set against a £4 billion hole in the national decommissioning budget revealed yesterday by the Government.

Oldbury was due to be decommissioned in 2008 after operating for 41 years but was then given permission to run until this year.

Now the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, which owns the atomic plant near Thornbury, has revealed it wants the end date to be extended again, a decision that will be taken by an independent regulator.

A spokesman for the NDA said: "It's providing such valuable electricity we can sell on the market. Oldbury is making us money. We would like it to operate a little bit longer."

Operators Magnox North said the plant generated 2.7 terawatts of power during the year to the end of March – enough to power two million homes. Magnox North managing director, Neil Baldwin, said: "The
considerable revenue made from this exceptional generation performance is extremely valuable in funding the ongoing decommissioning and clean-up of the country's civil nuclear legacy."

But what they fail to say is that Oldbury's graphite (think pencils) core is seriously eroded. The longer the nuclear power station continues to function, the more dangerous the core becomes and the more likely it is to fail, resulting in uncontrollable fire with massive release of radioactivity.

Why has the nuclear regulator decided to gamble with the health of future generations, just in order to offset a small part of the decommissioning clean-up costs? In the long run the revenue generated by Oldbury nuclear power station will do little to fill the decommissioning budget hole, which is set to rise exponentially over the next few decades.

Italian Troops exposed to depleted uranium

It looks as if Italian troops are being sent to pick up the pieces of depleted uranium bombs dropped by the US and UK in various parts of the world. Are Italians, once again, being treated as expendible third world soldiers?
“We handle depleted uranium bombs with bare hands”. This is what Italian soldiers said in 1993.

A military document demonstrates that radioactive bombs are kept in Italian bases with little attention to health and safety.

This is a story about silence. Silence about the fact that Italian soldiers pick up the depleted uranium bombs that were fired in war zones. This certainly happened in Somalia, it could have happened in Iraq with the NBC (nuclear, bacteriological, chemical) forces, who were stationed at Bassora. The troops in Somalia collected pieces of radioactive material, together with sand, from where the bombs fell. They put this material into metal containers and transported it to Italy, where the contaminated material was dealt with by workmen, often unprotected.

And they didn’t choose to do this.

L’Unione Sarda newspaper got hold of a 2001 military document which proved that the soldiers had been handling depleted uranium bombs, without knowing that that was what they were.

This document is a request for health checks from the artificieri (whose names have been covered up to protect them) from a base in Tuscany. The document is addressed to those in command, requesting that the organization responsible for carrying out health checks should carry out these checks.

These are the key passages from the document, (the signs that appear at the beginning indicate, according to NATO codes, perforating anti tank depleted uranium bombs: the brackets are in the original).

“As far as depleted uranium is concerned the personel specified here were working with anti tank bombs from Lot 105/51 mm APFS/DS-T-DM33 (depleted uranium) and with explosive and non-explosive material (including sacks of sand and various materials). These materials were brought back from other areas (areas at risk) in containers and military vehicles to be counted and deposited in a temporary store, prior to being taken back to the deposit.

We would like to bring to your attention the fact that when the work was carried out on the sum total of the bombs returning from Somalia, the outer shells, when they returned to the munitions deposit, showed signs of having been under water and they were malformed, so that it was difficult to establish which of the bombs, or how many of them, were in good condition, without a more detailed examination.

In order to accertain whether the bombs were still usable, the workers opened the boxes and containers and took the bombs out. Then they cleaned the shells and the bombs with wire wool where they were oxidised. Then they polished the shells and bombs with vaseline oil and jute cloth, after which they put them back into their containers, now clean and perfect.

The conclusion of our request is: the personel who carried out this work did it without taking any precautions because they thought they were dealing with materials that were the same as any other materials in the store. We await a detailed response and the health checks that we requested and thank you for your attention. 12/01/2001

Yours faithfully


The artificiere personel

The Ibis Mission in Somalia began in December 1992 and ended in January 1994. Eleven Italian soldiers lost their lives there.

The work on the bombs and contaminated sand was carried out in January 2001.
The reason for this was: when questions were raised in parliament on the 21st Dec 2000 concerning the illnesses and deaths possibly caused by depleted uranium, (reported by the Unione Sarda and Libero newspapers), the minister of defence, Sergio Mattarella (Ulivo party, under the government of Giuliano Amato) admitted that 10,800 radioactive bombs were dropped in Bosnia, but denied that these munitions were used in the poligono of Teulada (Somalia?)

In a few days soldiers of the 7th Regiment NBC stationed at Civitavecchia will be in Iraq. Will they be bringing anything back to Italy? Where will it be stored?
direzione-tecnica@misteriditalia.com

SABBIA CONTAMINATA E FRAMMENTI DEI COLPI SPARATI IN SOMALIA NELLA GUERRA DEL ’93 di Marco Mostallino da: L'Unione Sarda, 29 maggio 2003

Contaminated sand and fragments of the bombs that were fired during the war in Somalia in 1993.
By Marco Mostallino. From L’Unione Sarda, 29 March 2003

The waste 'repository' at Drigg is almost full - radioactive waste is now being refused entry

Radioactive waste is now being refused entry from, for example, Chapel Cross, who want to dump the decommissioned magnox plant - contaminated soil and rubble into Cumbria.

Even the pro nuke MP Jamie Reed is opposed to nuke dump sites away from the Sellafield site in other parts of Cumbria.
The nuclear industry wants to dispose of 12 lorries a day of radioactive wastes in the former open cast coal mine of Keekle Head - near to the source of the river Keekle (recently featured on BBC Countryfile as an
important salmon river worth millions to the Cumbrian economy).

The radioactive wastes would leach into the land and there would be adverse impact on the environment and health of residents - cynically called "receptors" by the industry.

The planning meeting for radioactive waste in landfill will be heard on 22nd June at Kendal County Offices 11am.

The application is to put radioactive waste into Keekle Head - former open cast coal mine and near to the source of the River Keekle.

The planning application number is : 4/10/9001 Keekle Head

send a emails to: developmentcontrol@cumbriacc.gov.uk in opposition to this proposal.

or send letters to Development Control Team Cumbria County Council County Offices Kendal LA9 4RQ

Or Phone :01539 713066

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119805971373120&ref=mf
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119805971373120

useful bullet points here:

Keekle Head
'Endecom UK Ltd' are proposing to put forward a Planning Application for a Radioactive Waste dump at Keekle Head in West Cumbria (5 miles inland from Whitehaven).

One Million Cubic Metres of Waste
Endecom plan to send 12 lorry loads of radioactive waste a day to the site - in total one million cubic metres will travel through Cumbria's roads.

Endecom Describe Local People as "Receptors"
The Company accept that if their planned dump goes ahead there will be risks to local people, as radioactivity will dissolve, get into the water supply - and reach the local population.

Endecom refer to the people who would become contaminated as 'receptors' .
Endecom have no idea of likely Risk

The risk assessment for the proposal has not yet been carried out.
Thirty five radionuclides have been listed as likely to be present - but these have not been assessed.

Planning System + Fast-Tracking of Projects
Recent changes to the planning regime - brought in to speed up project development will drastically limit the opportunity for local people and councils to scrutinise proposals. Therefore - given that the risks of this project are unknown, this is just the wrong time for the project to be put forward.

Minimal Jobs
Although the project would employ 50 people during construction, after this, during operation, the project would only provide 15 jobs.

Threat to Fish
Cumbria's rivers bring in a revenue of £60M from fish stocks -the River Keekle is an important salmon migratory route.

Refs

Endecom - 'Proposed Keekle Head Waste Management Centre' - Six Page Brochure., Summer 2009
Note received from Doug Allan for Endecom - setting out answers received from Rob Scott of Nuvia (to questions sent from Dr Rachel Western - Nuclear Researcher for Friends of the Earth [Cumbria groups] ) 7th September 2009

Endecom Note - 7th Sept 2009 (See above)

NDA / DEFRA Radioactive Waste Inventory (2007) - See 'Detailed Data on Sellafield - Waste Stream 2D148 High Volume Very Low Level Waste from Final Decommissioning (HVVLLW) pp413 418 [NB - to locate this page from the 2007 Inventory CD, click 'Detailed Data' Box, then 'Waste Stream Data Sheets', then 'Nuclear Decommissioning Authority', then 'Sellafield', finally search for 2D148 - by typing this into the 'find' box in the top left hand side of the screen.

Edecom refer to the 2D148 waste stream [High Volume Very Low Level Waste from Final Decommissioning (HVVLLW) ] in their 7th Sept 2009 note Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor - The Times - "Infrastructure change 'will fast-track planning'" - 1st October 2009

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6856130.ece

£60M Cumbrian Rivers - BBC Countryfile April

French antinuclear network “Sortir du nucléaire” supports nuclear industry subcontractor and whistleblower Philippe Billard

French antinuclear network “Sortir du nucléaire” supports nuclear industry subcontractor and whistleblower Philippe Billard


Philippe Billard, trade unionist, subcontracts for the nuclear industry. He has already been exposed to radiation while working in nuclear power plants and will be heard by the industrial tribunal of Rouen on 1st June. As a spokesperson of the organisation “Santé / Sous-traitance” (“Health and Subcontracting”), he has undergone some retaliation measures after having denounced workers exposure to radiation. As a whistleblower, he’s now treated as persona non grata in nuclear power plants. His employer refuses to re-instate him at his previous job, in contradiction with the Labour Inspectorate’s recommendations.

The French antinuclear network “Sortir du nucléaire”, which gathers about 880 organisations, firmly condemns the nuclear industry as life-threatening and opaque, and considers Philippe Billard’s ousting as a means to put pressure on whistleblower workers. “Sortir du nucléaire” decided to bring its support to the workers who, just like Philippe Billard, suffer from the unbearable working conditions imposed by the nuclear industry and undergo irradiation without even receiving appropriate health care.

To protect its corporate image, EDF chose to give subcontractors the most dangerous tasks. These people working in the shadows have insecure jobs and are mostly temporary and/or nomad workers. Every year, 25,000 to 30,000 of them are made to carry out tasks where they are exposed to radiations. This system allows EDF to cover up a huge health scandal, since these subcontractors, who get 80% of the annual collective dose from the whole French nuclear park, are not taken into account in epidemiological surveys[1] !

EDF is shamelessly multiplying talks on transparency while hushing up workers whistle blowing about the imminent catastrophe. In the ageing French nuclear park, the accident risk is increasing, all the more since maintenance periods are shortened in order to save time and money. However, the official motto remains “Nothing to report”[2]. Short-term profits are more important than common safety and security.

The nuclear industry lets a permanent accident risk hang over populations and sacrifices workers’ health. It is high time to reduce our electricity consumption and to shift towards more sustainable ways of producing energy, which threaten neither the workers nor the people and create far more jobs[3], clean, safe and spread nationwide.

In support with Philippe Billard and all the workers suffering in the nuclear industry, the network “Sortir du nucléaire” calls to join the trade union gathering on June, the 1st at 8: 30 , in front of the tribunal (2, place de la Madeleine, Rouen, Normandy)

Further information (in French) on : http://groupes.sortirdunucleaire.org/blogs/sante-et-sous-traitance/

[1] Annie Thébaud-Mony, « L’industrie nucléaire organise le non-suivi médical des travailleurs les plus exposés », Imagine, May-June 2007

[2] See the movie « R.A.S. Nucléaire : Rien à signaler » by Alain de Halleux, 2009

[3] As an example, more than 300 000 jobs have been created in Germany in renewable energy and energy efficiency since the 2000 Renewable Energy Bill.

Réseau "Sortir du nucléaire" / French Nuclear Phaseout Network

Federation gathering 876 NGOs and organizations

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/