The press release (in German) says:
"Don't buy electricity from Vattenfall"
Anti-nuclear activists announce resistance to the re-commissioning of Krümmel and Brunsbüttel
Regarding the plans of Vattenfall to re-commission the ailing nuclear power plants of Krümmel and Brunsbüttel, Jochen Stay, spokesperson of the anti-nuclear organisation .ausgestrahlt, declares:
"I can only warn Vattenfall from re-commissioning Krümmel and Brunsbüttel. Nobody in northern Germany would understand that, and the last three years, during which these stations have been shut down, show,
that the electricity of these stations is not needed.
Now Vattenfall once again wants to profit from these dangerous plants, at the expense of the general public. We will organise resistance against this. The first step will be that we will call on the clients of Vattenfall to look for a different supplier for their electricity.“
Already in April 120,000 people demonstrated with a 120km human chain for the permanent shut down of Krümmel and Brunsbüttel.
http://www.ausgestrahlt.de/
Vattenfall is a large Swedish electricity company with nuclear power plants in Sweden and Germany. See at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vattenfal
Thursday, 23 September 2010
High Level Nuke Dump Opposition
Who in their right mind would oppose "Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely" ?
The cleverly (Orwellian) titled: Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership is designed to stifle any opposition to thegeological 'disposal' of high level nuclear waste.
A Pictorial View of the Lakes Nuclear Sacrifice Zone - from Coniston Old Man
Radiation Free Lakeland are based in South Lakeland on the border with Lancashire and regularly witness radioactive wastes enroute to Sellafield past the RSPB's Leighton Moss reserve, across the Morecambe Bay viaduct on the one side and through Greyrigg on the other.
The 'Partnership' process is aimed solely at steering 'volunteer' communities into the acceptance of deep disposal of high level nuclear wastes. The safer option of above ground and retrievable waste management is not even on the agenda. If the 'volunteer' process fails then the government "will look at other options" to force 'disposal', [DECC – NewBuild RadWaste Summary (Nov ’09) – para 106 page 23 ]
We take this to mean forcing an underground high level nuclear dump (or more than one dump) on communities. The MRWS process is looking to include NewBuild wastes, and the pronuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change is desperate to give the appearance of having 'solved the problem of nuclear waste 'in order to go ahead with new build. In March of this year Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates identified over 100 problems with disposal, and a report published this month by Dr Helen Wallace, for Greenpeace International confirms that deep disposal of radioactive wastes has the “potential for significant radiological releases through a variety of mechanisms”.
Deep disposal of radioactive waste is not the best way to protect people from the dangers that these wastes present.
Radiation Free Lakeland have formally registered their firm commitment to an expression of opposition to the so called Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership which is doublespeak for Out of Sight Out of Mind- whatever the consequences.
Groups/communities should register their opposition to ensure a viable future for Cumbria and the North West.
letter to "Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership
Subject: Invitation to join Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership
From: mariannebirkby@mariannebirkby.plus.comDate: Sun, September 19, 2010 3:52 pm
To: "Rhuari Bennett"
Dear Rhuari, Very Many thanks for the formal invitation to Radiation Free Lakeland to join the MRWS Partnership. Yes we would very much like to be kept informed of activities of the Partnership but will decline membership for the following reasons. We are based in South Lakeland on the border with Lancashire and regularly witness radioactive wastes enroute to Sellafield past the RSPB's LeightonMoss reserve, across the Morecambe Bay viaduct on the one side and through Greyrigg on the other. We understand that your role in the Partnership is as facilitator 'to achieve an outcome' ( http://www.3kq.co.uk/#/the-3-the-k-and-the-q/4529763646).
The Partnership process is aimed solely at steering 'volunteer' communities into the acceptance of deep disposal of high level nuclear wastes rather than looking at the safer option of above ground and retrievable waste management. If the 'volunteer' process fails then the government "will look at other options", [DECC – NewBuild RadWaste Summary (Nov ’09) – para 106 page 23 ] We take this to mean forcing an underground nuclear dump (or more than one dump) on communities. The MRWS process is looking to include NewBuild wastes, and the pronuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change is desperate to give the appearance of having 'solved the problem of nuclear waste 'in order to go ahead with new build.
In March of this year Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates identified over 100 problems with disposal, and a report published this month by Dr Helen Wallace, for Greenpeace International (attached) confirms that deep disposal of radioactive wastes has the “potential for significant radiological releases through a variety of mechanisms”. Clearly deep disposal of radioactive waste is not the best way to protect people from the dangers that these wastes present.
We would therefore like to formally register Radiation Free Lakeland's firm commitment to an expression of opposition to the so called Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership which is doublespeak for Out of Sight Out of Mind- whatever the consequences.
yours sincerely, Marianne Birkby on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
Who in their right mind would oppose "Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely" ?
The cleverly (Orwellian) titled: Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership is designed to stifle any opposition to thegeological 'disposal' of high level nuclear waste.
Radiation Free Lakeland are based in South Lakeland on the border with Lancashire and regularly witness radioactive wastes enroute to Sellafield past the RSPB's Leighton Moss reserve, across the Morecambe Bay viaduct on the one side and through Greyrigg on the other.
The 'Partnership' process is aimed solely at steering 'volunteer' communities into the acceptance of deep disposal of high level nuclear wastes. The safer option of above ground and retrievable waste management is not even on the agenda. If the 'volunteer' process fails then the government "will look at other options" to force 'disposal', [DECC – NewBuild RadWaste Summary (Nov ’09) – para 106 page 23 ]
We take this to mean forcing an underground high level nuclear dump (or more than one dump) on communities. The MRWS process is looking to include NewBuild wastes, and the pronuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change is desperate to give the appearance of having 'solved the problem of nuclear waste 'in order to go ahead with new build. In March of this year Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates identified over 100 problems with disposal, and a report published this month by Dr Helen Wallace, for Greenpeace International confirms that deep disposal of radioactive wastes has the “potential for significant radiological releases through a variety of mechanisms”.
Deep disposal of radioactive waste is not the best way to protect people from the dangers that these wastes present.
Radiation Free Lakeland have formally registered their firm commitment to an expression of opposition to the so called Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership which is doublespeak for Out of Sight Out of Mind- whatever the consequences.
Groups/communities should register their opposition to ensure a viable future for Cumbria and the North West.
letter to "Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership
Subject: Invitation to join Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership
From: mariannebirkby@mariannebirkby.plus.comDate: Sun, September 19, 2010 3:52 pm
To: "Rhuari Bennett"
Dear Rhuari, Very Many thanks for the formal invitation to Radiation Free Lakeland to join the MRWS Partnership. Yes we would very much like to be kept informed of activities of the Partnership but will decline membership for the following reasons. We are based in South Lakeland on the border with Lancashire and regularly witness radioactive wastes enroute to Sellafield past the RSPB's LeightonMoss reserve, across the Morecambe Bay viaduct on the one side and through Greyrigg on the other. We understand that your role in the Partnership is as facilitator 'to achieve an outcome' ( http://www.3kq.co.uk/#/the-3-the-k-and-the-q/4529763646).
The Partnership process is aimed solely at steering 'volunteer' communities into the acceptance of deep disposal of high level nuclear wastes rather than looking at the safer option of above ground and retrievable waste management. If the 'volunteer' process fails then the government "will look at other options", [DECC – NewBuild RadWaste Summary (Nov ’09) – para 106 page 23 ] We take this to mean forcing an underground nuclear dump (or more than one dump) on communities. The MRWS process is looking to include NewBuild wastes, and the pronuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change is desperate to give the appearance of having 'solved the problem of nuclear waste 'in order to go ahead with new build.
In March of this year Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates identified over 100 problems with disposal, and a report published this month by Dr Helen Wallace, for Greenpeace International (attached) confirms that deep disposal of radioactive wastes has the “potential for significant radiological releases through a variety of mechanisms”. Clearly deep disposal of radioactive waste is not the best way to protect people from the dangers that these wastes present.
We would therefore like to formally register Radiation Free Lakeland's firm commitment to an expression of opposition to the so called Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership which is doublespeak for Out of Sight Out of Mind- whatever the consequences.
yours sincerely, Marianne Birkby on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
Germans Protest Nuclear Plants
By REUTERS
Published: September 18, 2010
BERLIN (Reuters) — Tens of thousands of Germans surrounded Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office on Saturday in an antinuclear demonstration that organizers said was the biggest of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The protest, which organizers said drew 100,000 people, could help to mobilize growing grass-roots opposition to Mrs. Merkel’s center-right coalition, which has suffered a slump in popularity since taking office last October.
Near the start of the protest, the police said there were close to 40,000 demonstrators. They declined to give a later estimate.
In a peaceful march around Berlin’s government quarter, protesters converged on Mrs. Merkel’s chancellery to call for a stop to her plans to extend the life spans of nuclear power stations by an average of 12 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html
Published: September 18, 2010
BERLIN (Reuters) — Tens of thousands of Germans surrounded Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office on Saturday in an antinuclear demonstration that organizers said was the biggest of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The protest, which organizers said drew 100,000 people, could help to mobilize growing grass-roots opposition to Mrs. Merkel’s center-right coalition, which has suffered a slump in popularity since taking office last October.
Near the start of the protest, the police said there were close to 40,000 demonstrators. They declined to give a later estimate.
In a peaceful march around Berlin’s government quarter, protesters converged on Mrs. Merkel’s chancellery to call for a stop to her plans to extend the life spans of nuclear power stations by an average of 12 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Nuclear reactors: safe and cost-effective?
Fears are growing about the safety of nuclear technology destined for a reactor in France. At Flamanville, a new third generation reactor is supposed to be activated in 2012, but tests have been deemed unsatisfactory by France's nuclear safety authority. This has fuelled debate on the future of nuclear energy, as France hopes to sell third generation reactors around the world, especially to Britain.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100816-reactor-nuclear-epr-third-generation-nuclear-power-alternative-energy-flamanville-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)