Dr Paul Dorfman
13th December, 2010
UK plans for ten new nuclear power plants will create £80 billion worth of radioactive waste that we still have no secure way of disposing
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the nuclear industry have a plan for 10 new ‘Generation 3’ reactors, each one containing 2.5 times the radiological inventory of the UK’s biggest AGR reactor at Sizewell B. In a recent Ministerial statement, Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for DECC made it clear that the Coalition is not ruling out taking on unspecified nuclear ‘financial risks or liabilities’ to make this happen. Given the sheer weight of our current nuclear legacy, its' clear that this will also involve nuclear waste ‘financial risks or liabilities’.
The most recent estimates are that, once ‘packaged’, the UK already has around 1,420 cubic metres of hot high-level radioactive waste, 364,000 cubic metres of long lived intermediate-level radioactive waste, and 3,470,000 cubic metres of toxic low-level radioactive waste. The Government proposes to house the high and intermediate part of this vast inventory in a deep hole five times the size of the Albert Hall over millennia. Government officials estimate that the cost of managing this waste and decommissioning will be around £80 billion and rising – five years ago it was around £50 billion. There are no secure estimates for costing a deep disposal repository.
Waste will be five times more radioactive
And this is just what we have at the moment. Although the nuclear industry estimate that any new build radioactive waste would increase the problem by only 10 per cent in volume - they fail to mention that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has worked out that the radioactivity would increase by five times, which means that we would need 15 Albert Halls to house the waste.
Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich Business School, suggests that the liberalisation of the energy market in Europe has pressured the nuclear industry to become more competitive. The industry realised that a decrease in cost could be achieved if the reactor’s power could be increased, and this could happen by using more enriched uranium as reactor fuel. The logic is that this ‘super-charged’ fuel will be left in the reactor for longer in order to provide, as Jeremy Clarkson might say, ‘more power’.
Unfortunately, the Law of Unintended Consequences also means that this ‘high burn-up’ spent fuel is twice as radioactive than conventional spent fuel, and the reactor operations will have a much tighter safety margin. This is because high burn-up fuel is much hotter, much more radioactive, and performs very poorly when subject to ‘abnormal conditions’. John Large, an international consulting nuclear engineer, notes that ‘These risks persist through the nuclear cycle, as high burn-up fuel is liable to release a much higher content of its fission product inventory, known as the ‘immediate release fraction’, than fuel used in current reactors. And the situation isn’t being helped by the nuclear industries heroic safety claims: AREVA EdF’s ‘worst case’ estimate - including terrorist attack – insist that no more than 0.2 per cent of the reactor core content would be released during ‘open containment’ in ‘abnormal conditions’.
But surely things are better elsewhere? Well, not really. Although the deep geological concept is in the very early stage of testing in Finland and Sweden - in the US, Obama has withdrawn funding from the Yucca Mountain geological radioactive waste dump, saying that ‘After spending billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Project, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there’. In Japan and Germany, proposals for deep disposal facilities have encountered strong opposition, and in France, 15 years of research on deep underground burial has proved ‘inconclusive’.
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/691982/the_government_isnt_telling_us_the_true_cost_of_nuclear_waste_disposal.html
Friday, 17 December 2010
Backdoor Subsidies Introduced to prop up Nuclear Power
The coalition government has torn up its “no subsidy for nuclear” commitment with a series of measures aimed at financially supporting the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Today’s announcement by Energy Secretary Chris Huhne on “electricity market reform” includes a range of mechanisms aimed at making low carbon sources of electricity more economic in comparison to polluting fossil fuels like coal and gas. But while generators of carbon-free renewable electricity will no doubt be pleased, the nuclear industry will be celebrating a successful lobbying exercise.
“Private companies like EdF have already said that they can’t build nuclear power stations without additional financial incentives,” said Stop Hinkley spokesman Crispin Aubrey. “These new measures are aimed at helping them make a profit from a technology that carries massive future liabilities, including dealing with dangerous radioactive waste for up to 160 years."
The pro-government Daily Telegraph newspaper describes the measures unequivocally as a subsidy for nuclear. “Years of lobbying by nuclear companies has finally paid off as the Government will today reveal plans to subsidise the price that they are paid for generating electricity”, it concludes .
The fragile economics of nuclear power are already on the line as the first European Pressurised Reactor being built - the type proposed for Hinkley C – has doubled its initial cost estimate to 5.7 billion Euros.
Nuclear power has been covertly subsidised for many years in two obvious ways - through taxpayer support for its decommissioning and waste disposal costs and through the limit set on its liability in the event of a serious accident. These new proposals will increase electricity bills - by as much as £500 a year according to one estimate - in order to help pay for nuclear new build.
The changes to the electricity market proposed today still have to be agreed by parliament and squared with European legislation, so there are opportunities for their bias towards nuclear to be exposed and ruled out of order.
Stop Hinkley will be supporting national action to push nuclear power out of the “clean energy” basket and expose it as a diversion from a genuinely green future involving energy saving and a range of renewable sources.
http://www.stophinkley.org/
Today’s announcement by Energy Secretary Chris Huhne on “electricity market reform” includes a range of mechanisms aimed at making low carbon sources of electricity more economic in comparison to polluting fossil fuels like coal and gas. But while generators of carbon-free renewable electricity will no doubt be pleased, the nuclear industry will be celebrating a successful lobbying exercise.
“Private companies like EdF have already said that they can’t build nuclear power stations without additional financial incentives,” said Stop Hinkley spokesman Crispin Aubrey. “These new measures are aimed at helping them make a profit from a technology that carries massive future liabilities, including dealing with dangerous radioactive waste for up to 160 years."
The pro-government Daily Telegraph newspaper describes the measures unequivocally as a subsidy for nuclear. “Years of lobbying by nuclear companies has finally paid off as the Government will today reveal plans to subsidise the price that they are paid for generating electricity”, it concludes .
The fragile economics of nuclear power are already on the line as the first European Pressurised Reactor being built - the type proposed for Hinkley C – has doubled its initial cost estimate to 5.7 billion Euros.
Nuclear power has been covertly subsidised for many years in two obvious ways - through taxpayer support for its decommissioning and waste disposal costs and through the limit set on its liability in the event of a serious accident. These new proposals will increase electricity bills - by as much as £500 a year according to one estimate - in order to help pay for nuclear new build.
The changes to the electricity market proposed today still have to be agreed by parliament and squared with European legislation, so there are opportunities for their bias towards nuclear to be exposed and ruled out of order.
Stop Hinkley will be supporting national action to push nuclear power out of the “clean energy” basket and expose it as a diversion from a genuinely green future involving energy saving and a range of renewable sources.
http://www.stophinkley.org/
Monday, 13 December 2010
Don’t nuke our climate!
As part of an international day of action THOUSAND OF CANCUNS FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE, called by the International peasant farmers network La Via Campesina, we targeted European institutions and corporations which support, fund and push the idea of nuclear energy as clean, renewable and possible solution for climate crisis.
Our message is simple: nuclear power is unsustainable and unacceptably dangerous.
Watch the action movie now on youtube.
Why nuclear?
Nuclear energy is promoted as a clean technology but the mining of uranium has massive social and environmental impacts and the problem of safe nuclear waste disposal is yet to be solved. We are being locked into an uncertain future where they will have to shoulder the burden of this false solution. Besides that, we are leaving an extremely toxic and unsafe waste heritage to future generations (40000 generations!!!) and in the same time we have been ignoring the real solutions that will assure safe and sustainable future.
http://www.cancun-brussels.org/?p=115
http://www.youtube.com/user/YFriendsOfTheEarth#p/a/u/0/IFaq8ibel-U
Thursday, 9 December 2010
A cry from the heart about the destruction caused by nuclear new build
" Dear Sirs
I will be as brief as I can be in telling a complex story that I hope you will consider worth pursuing on any one of the issues that arise from it.
I will not pretend that I am writing exclusively to you; rather, I am writing to all and sundry on behalf of the small hamlets of Shurton, Burton and Wick and by extension, every hamlet in the country in the hope that, as one neighbour put it, “we might find ourselves to be rather more than a few voices crying in the wilderness of injustice that EDF are currently proposing to create”.
This area of West Somerset is unassuming, virtually unknown and simply, magically beautiful apart from the two nuclear power stations that squat on the coast. A third is proposed, not least because the population already lives with the first two. The early stages of EdF’s proposals were not resisted, partly because people felt that they had no choice and that the new station would be like the first two. It was thought that local benefits might accrue to the host parish and the county, but as the true extent of the development and the crushing, barely mitigated impact on the locality was revealed, the residents have turned from resignation and acceptance to horror and antipathy.
Much of the blame for this can be laid at EdF’s door. The consultation process has failed to give the detail an informed response requires and it has ignored local feedback (as all the official responses from Local Government confirm). The company has resisted all efforts made by local people to engage with them at anything other than the most superficial level. The company’s representatives do this with consummate charm and very sophisticated PR support but nobody is fooled that any real modification to the company’s original scheme is contemplated.
In effect, these three small hamlets on the southern boundary of the proposed development will be crushed. Their way of life will vanish over-night and for ten years or more they will be marooned in a noisy, dusty, polluted and spot-lit industrial wasteland, with little more than the qualified offer of double-glazing to off-set the damage, all for the sake of what the IPC may identify as “over-riding public interest”.
It is not just us. The rest of the county will suffer as well to a lesser but still damaging degree. Whitehall is watching. We are the first in the country; what happens here will happen everywhere that new nuclear power stations are proposed. If we - few in number, far from wealthy, and without spheres of influence - cannot make our voices heard, other communities will be compromised from the outset.
Now, before the main submission to the IPC has been submitted, let alone granted, EdF proposes to begin ‘preliminary works’. It hopes to do this beginning in March 2011. It seeks to uproot hedgerows and copses over 500 acres, fill in a valley, excavate and level the coastal hinterland, build a massive jetty next to a fossil beach, drive roads across fields and pile mountains of spoil around the hamlets, all before the design of the reactor is approved, let alone the development itself. The company says that if it fails to get planning permission from the IPC and the Secretary of State, it will ‘restore’ what it has destroyed. We wonder how.
There are so many issues that we wish the national press would take up – political, economic, social and community, manipulation and management of public awareness, heritage and culture, the environment. If the country is complacent about nuclear power, it should not be complacent about nor ignorant of the true cost.
Please get in touch, if only to discover whether or not there is anything more in this that your paper could use to sell copies. We will organize access to all the information and support you might want. EdF of course will fall over itself to tell you how wonderful it is.
Yours sincerely
Lesley Flash
Myrtle Farm, Shurton, Stogursey, Somerset TA5 1QE 01278 732417"
Uranium Price surges as Beijing goes nuclear
How cheap will it be to run nuclear plants as China and India begin a huge expansion of nuclear new build?
We are already seeing a huge rise in the price of uranium, before they even begin their building programme. But as "good" sources of uranium (i.e. 0.1%) run out and mining companies are forced to mine rock with a far lower yield, costs will spiral.
Angela
Mark Robinson in Investors Chronicle said on the 8th Dec
"Spot prices for uranium have recently bubbled up to around the $67 (£42.38) mark following confirmation that China's plans for its nuclear industry are far more ambitious than previously thought. At the recent International Nuclear Symposium held in Beijing, Chinese authorities announced that the People's Republic intended to construct up to 245 reactors over the next 20 years , at a projected cost of $511bn (£323bn).
China's ambitious urbanisation programme, coupled with unrelenting industrial demand, have placed great strain on its existing power infrastructure. Currently it is reliant on coal-fired power stations for 65 per cent of its energy needs, but as demand steadily rises, the country is facing the prospect of perpetual energy deficits unless alternate sources are brought on stream.
By 2020, it is estimated that China will require at least 35 per cent of the world’s current output of uranium ore, and that’s before the majority of the new reactors come on stream. Other countries, such as India, are also determined to expand nuclear capacity.
The recent hike in the spot price for uranium means it has now risen around 45 per cent since the start of this year. And come 2013, the supply of 'above-ground' uranium that has come from the gradual decommissioning of a vast arsenal of Sovier-era missiles will cease. That could throw the underlying supply-demand picture into sharp relief and have significant implications for the spot price."
We are already seeing a huge rise in the price of uranium, before they even begin their building programme. But as "good" sources of uranium (i.e. 0.1%) run out and mining companies are forced to mine rock with a far lower yield, costs will spiral.
Angela
Mark Robinson in Investors Chronicle said on the 8th Dec
"Spot prices for uranium have recently bubbled up to around the $67 (£42.38) mark following confirmation that China's plans for its nuclear industry are far more ambitious than previously thought. At the recent International Nuclear Symposium held in Beijing, Chinese authorities announced that the People's Republic intended to construct up to 245 reactors over the next 20 years , at a projected cost of $511bn (£323bn).
China's ambitious urbanisation programme, coupled with unrelenting industrial demand, have placed great strain on its existing power infrastructure. Currently it is reliant on coal-fired power stations for 65 per cent of its energy needs, but as demand steadily rises, the country is facing the prospect of perpetual energy deficits unless alternate sources are brought on stream.
By 2020, it is estimated that China will require at least 35 per cent of the world’s current output of uranium ore, and that’s before the majority of the new reactors come on stream. Other countries, such as India, are also determined to expand nuclear capacity.
The recent hike in the spot price for uranium means it has now risen around 45 per cent since the start of this year. And come 2013, the supply of 'above-ground' uranium that has come from the gradual decommissioning of a vast arsenal of Sovier-era missiles will cease. That could throw the underlying supply-demand picture into sharp relief and have significant implications for the spot price."
Monday, 6 December 2010
Why did the activists stop the nuclear waste train?
We find it absurd to transport 123 tons of highly radioactive waste across France and Germany to get them to a storage place that doesn’t offer any more guarantees compared to where the waste was stored in the first place. We understand the demand for return of the waste in their country of origin, from associations which fought from the beginning to prevent the arrival of these radioactive materials.
This transport of nuclear materials was also the most radioactive ever made: it contained twice the radioactivity released during the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Such convoys expose populations present along the path to excessive risks, both to their lives in the short-term but also long-term health … as is the case in Savoy with the transport of Italian waste two years ago. It was therefore logical to oppose this transport as well as all other trains with nuclear waste. It was also to express solidarity with the people of Germany who are not resigned to see their land contaminated forever.
Why stop the train?
This form of action is part of a movement of civil disobedience. This direct action was admittedly illegal from the standpoint of the law, but legitimate when compared to the danger and opacity of the nuclear industry.
It was also an act of solidarity and encouragement for antinuclear activists in Germany who were preparing to act in similar ways, a means to denounce the nuclear issue at the European level.
Radioactivity has no boundaries neither does our resistance!
This mode of action is of course not the only one but against the authoritarianism and the opacity of the nuclear industry it became necessary to choose this type of action. It definitely felt more of a necessity than a choice, which leads us to prefer a non-violent direct action to another mode of action.
A well planned action
Obviously, this was an action that was planned to be carried out safely.
Every precaution was taken not to put ourselves in danger with regards to the train. Thus, it is only when we saw that the train had stopped on the track (about a kilometre away) that the ten of us started the blockade. We very quickly set up under the rails, metal arm tubes on which five of us were locked on and we lit flares for the train driver to see us like we could see the lights on the train.
We then placed the banners indicating that the main message for our friends in Germany: "Our resistance knows no borders. Castor 2010, the first act. "
As with all such actions, the goal was not having to physically confront the police.
Without really believing it, we would have liked to maintain the presence of support for those doing physical lock-ons. This wasn’t possible.
The Law Enforcement
The police arrived within minutes by waves accompanied by a representative of the SNCF, then the mobile police and finally, the CRS (French riot police) who left the train while it was running slowly or close to us.
The police started removing the activists from the tracks that were not locked-on as well as journalists, and only then the CRS started to be interested in those who were locked on. They then put up blue tarpaulins to prevent people from seeing what was happening.
Freeing the blockaders
After they suddenly realised while trying to manually unlock the militants that it was not possible, the CRS quickly used a Circular saw with a big grinder engine, for cutting metal tubes one by one. It was quite impressive and we did not know how it was going to finish.
The CRS were very tense and wanted to extract us as soon as possible to allow the train to leave. This eagerness was detrimental to our security.
While we were locked-on under the tracks, it was their responsibility to free us without harming us.
From the beginning, the CRS were violent not only towards the blockaders but all other witnesses who were quickly told/forced to leave.
In addition to putting us under psychological pressure for more than two hours, police deliberately injured three of us when cutting the tubes.
Despite the howls of pain associated with burns, the CRS continued like nothing had happened… After a while they stopped for just a few seconds, before resuming with a vengeance, pouring just a little bottled water. It was only when firemen were present for the last person that water was used in sufficient quantity to cool the tubes.
We were all injured during the police operation, three seriously: two of us had third degree burns on the left hand. The other person had two severed tendons in his hand and had to undergo surgery the next day.
Afterwards
Firemen transported three of us to the hospital. Custody had been filed for two upon arrival at the University Hospital in Caen, (before being treated by doctors). The third was transferred to another hospital for surgery.
Those treated on the spot were then transferred to the police station and placed in holding cells like the four others arrested at the scene of the blockade. The next day we were released to be brought before the prosecutor and the judge.
The last, he was arrested and put into custody immediately when discharged from hospital on Sunday evening two days after the action to be brought before the prosecutor and the judge the following day.
The condition of the wounded remains unresolved; the recovery will be long and the burned people will have to have skin grafts.
Justice
We could feel pressure coming “from above” in the Caen Court. The bail conditions the prosecution asked for were € 5000 to be handed in court by each of the seven activists before Monday, 15th November in order to avoid custody until trial, 8th December 2010. In the end, €16 500 were required in total.
This bond seems somewhat absurd, the prosecution has admitted our desire for everyone to be present at trial, while the judicial review, especially with such a financial guarantee was intended precisely to ensure the presence of the accused at trial. This demonstrates a willingness to put pressure on us or to slow the preparation of our defence as we had to raise this huge sum to start with, while the court was convened in just a month.
We expected to find ourselves in court; it is also often the case in this kind of action but not in such conditions.
The police
It is scandalous that in a non-violent action, the police deliberately cause injury to activists. It is for this reason that we have already filed a complaint against persons unknown “for aggravated violence”. Similarly, we have started a procedure with the CNDS (the police of the police).
The will of the government and the nuclear lobby was passing the convoy at all costs. We could see they were willing to wound, to hurt, to use violence. Was this what they had to hide behind the tarpaulins stretched out around the blockade?
Our goal now is to make them seriously regret their behaviour.
This affinity group is informal and autonomous without any legal existence.
It brings together men and women who wish to object strongly to nuclear power (including for military use). We can use the broad spectrum of non-violent direct actions and disobedience if they are declared and don’t harm people.
We reject authoritarianism and violence from both the state and the nuclear industry, so we exclude these principles in our operations and our actions.
Our core values are non-violence, solidarity and collective self-organisation.
At the end of 2010, we feel that we must go further into details. We recognise the diversity of group members and therefore we are not trying to write an ideology that should guide us.
Also, many in the group also act differently or similarly.
Some political positions (especially to political parties):
We are moving, above all, the idea of taking concrete action, to try to regain the power to interfere with the system that has allowed to develop nuclear and allowing it to continue.
These tools are those of the non-violent direct action and civil disobedience.
Linked to this, we attach great importance to disseminate the culture of self-organisation. The output of nuclear power is not only a technical issue or ecological, it is above all a democratic issue. And democracy for us is not that which is called “representative”.
However we do not want to be giving lessons. We are not political or policy experts, but we feel that a conflictual situation is much needed. This conflict that sometimes we create, restart or show must be taken up by a lot more people, by other actions, by direct questioning and even court cases. If someone can help to change things in an institution that they belong to, why not? We are not campaigning for that but everyone with the tools they dispose of can help us with nuclear phase out and to change the repressive system that we are in.
http://ganva.blogspot.com/
This transport of nuclear materials was also the most radioactive ever made: it contained twice the radioactivity released during the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Such convoys expose populations present along the path to excessive risks, both to their lives in the short-term but also long-term health … as is the case in Savoy with the transport of Italian waste two years ago. It was therefore logical to oppose this transport as well as all other trains with nuclear waste. It was also to express solidarity with the people of Germany who are not resigned to see their land contaminated forever.
Why stop the train?
This form of action is part of a movement of civil disobedience. This direct action was admittedly illegal from the standpoint of the law, but legitimate when compared to the danger and opacity of the nuclear industry.
It was also an act of solidarity and encouragement for antinuclear activists in Germany who were preparing to act in similar ways, a means to denounce the nuclear issue at the European level.
Radioactivity has no boundaries neither does our resistance!
This mode of action is of course not the only one but against the authoritarianism and the opacity of the nuclear industry it became necessary to choose this type of action. It definitely felt more of a necessity than a choice, which leads us to prefer a non-violent direct action to another mode of action.
A well planned action
Obviously, this was an action that was planned to be carried out safely.
Every precaution was taken not to put ourselves in danger with regards to the train. Thus, it is only when we saw that the train had stopped on the track (about a kilometre away) that the ten of us started the blockade. We very quickly set up under the rails, metal arm tubes on which five of us were locked on and we lit flares for the train driver to see us like we could see the lights on the train.
We then placed the banners indicating that the main message for our friends in Germany: "Our resistance knows no borders. Castor 2010, the first act. "
As with all such actions, the goal was not having to physically confront the police.
Without really believing it, we would have liked to maintain the presence of support for those doing physical lock-ons. This wasn’t possible.
The Law Enforcement
The police arrived within minutes by waves accompanied by a representative of the SNCF, then the mobile police and finally, the CRS (French riot police) who left the train while it was running slowly or close to us.
The police started removing the activists from the tracks that were not locked-on as well as journalists, and only then the CRS started to be interested in those who were locked on. They then put up blue tarpaulins to prevent people from seeing what was happening.
Freeing the blockaders
After they suddenly realised while trying to manually unlock the militants that it was not possible, the CRS quickly used a Circular saw with a big grinder engine, for cutting metal tubes one by one. It was quite impressive and we did not know how it was going to finish.
The CRS were very tense and wanted to extract us as soon as possible to allow the train to leave. This eagerness was detrimental to our security.
While we were locked-on under the tracks, it was their responsibility to free us without harming us.
From the beginning, the CRS were violent not only towards the blockaders but all other witnesses who were quickly told/forced to leave.
In addition to putting us under psychological pressure for more than two hours, police deliberately injured three of us when cutting the tubes.
Despite the howls of pain associated with burns, the CRS continued like nothing had happened… After a while they stopped for just a few seconds, before resuming with a vengeance, pouring just a little bottled water. It was only when firemen were present for the last person that water was used in sufficient quantity to cool the tubes.
We were all injured during the police operation, three seriously: two of us had third degree burns on the left hand. The other person had two severed tendons in his hand and had to undergo surgery the next day.
Afterwards
Firemen transported three of us to the hospital. Custody had been filed for two upon arrival at the University Hospital in Caen, (before being treated by doctors). The third was transferred to another hospital for surgery.
Those treated on the spot were then transferred to the police station and placed in holding cells like the four others arrested at the scene of the blockade. The next day we were released to be brought before the prosecutor and the judge.
The last, he was arrested and put into custody immediately when discharged from hospital on Sunday evening two days after the action to be brought before the prosecutor and the judge the following day.
The condition of the wounded remains unresolved; the recovery will be long and the burned people will have to have skin grafts.
Justice
We could feel pressure coming “from above” in the Caen Court. The bail conditions the prosecution asked for were € 5000 to be handed in court by each of the seven activists before Monday, 15th November in order to avoid custody until trial, 8th December 2010. In the end, €16 500 were required in total.
This bond seems somewhat absurd, the prosecution has admitted our desire for everyone to be present at trial, while the judicial review, especially with such a financial guarantee was intended precisely to ensure the presence of the accused at trial. This demonstrates a willingness to put pressure on us or to slow the preparation of our defence as we had to raise this huge sum to start with, while the court was convened in just a month.
We expected to find ourselves in court; it is also often the case in this kind of action but not in such conditions.
The police
It is scandalous that in a non-violent action, the police deliberately cause injury to activists. It is for this reason that we have already filed a complaint against persons unknown “for aggravated violence”. Similarly, we have started a procedure with the CNDS (the police of the police).
The will of the government and the nuclear lobby was passing the convoy at all costs. We could see they were willing to wound, to hurt, to use violence. Was this what they had to hide behind the tarpaulins stretched out around the blockade?
Our goal now is to make them seriously regret their behaviour.
Political stand
Who are we? What we stand for?
A few years ago, people involved in the Non-violent antinuclear Action group (GANVA in French) considered it important to draft a charter to consolidate a little bit positions that were until then more or less made up as they went along.This affinity group is informal and autonomous without any legal existence.
It brings together men and women who wish to object strongly to nuclear power (including for military use). We can use the broad spectrum of non-violent direct actions and disobedience if they are declared and don’t harm people.
We reject authoritarianism and violence from both the state and the nuclear industry, so we exclude these principles in our operations and our actions.
Our core values are non-violence, solidarity and collective self-organisation.
At the end of 2010, we feel that we must go further into details. We recognise the diversity of group members and therefore we are not trying to write an ideology that should guide us.
Also, many in the group also act differently or similarly.
Some political positions (especially to political parties):
We are moving, above all, the idea of taking concrete action, to try to regain the power to interfere with the system that has allowed to develop nuclear and allowing it to continue.
These tools are those of the non-violent direct action and civil disobedience.
Linked to this, we attach great importance to disseminate the culture of self-organisation. The output of nuclear power is not only a technical issue or ecological, it is above all a democratic issue. And democracy for us is not that which is called “representative”.
However we do not want to be giving lessons. We are not political or policy experts, but we feel that a conflictual situation is much needed. This conflict that sometimes we create, restart or show must be taken up by a lot more people, by other actions, by direct questioning and even court cases. If someone can help to change things in an institution that they belong to, why not? We are not campaigning for that but everyone with the tools they dispose of can help us with nuclear phase out and to change the repressive system that we are in.
http://ganva.blogspot.com/
Anti nuclear activists on trial in Caen, Normandy the 8 Dec
| Come and support the activists who blockaded the CASTOR train in Caen, France. Their trial is next Wednesday 8 December. They'll be a film/debate the night before and a concert on the Wednesday night. Free accommodation can be provided, contact:ganva@riseup.net for more info or send me an email. The website (in French and German) apart from this leaflet: http://ganva.blogspot.com/ Please send around to everyone and anyone. Hope to see you at the trial! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
