Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has said his government is in a state of maximum alert over the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. Plutonium was detected in soil at the facility and highly radioactive water had leaked from a reactor building. Officials in China, South Korea and the United States have recorded traces of radioactive material in the air.
If ever there was evidence that we need to move away from nuclear energy, it is in this news today.
We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.
Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.
The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his "Atoms for Peace" Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.
But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower's speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.
Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.
The risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting.
For days we’ve heard conflicting reports about the safety of radiation levels in the food and water in Japan. Just a few days ago, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government stated that radiation levels had decreased in the city. However, reports released on Wednesday cited the detection of radioactivity in the Tokyo water and warned with levels of radiation reaching twice the recommended limit, infants should not be given tap water.
The Japanese authorities have also started reporting on the contamination levels found in 11 different vegetables. In many vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage, from the Fukushima prefecture - the most contaminated area - the radioactivity levels exceeded safety limits set by the Ministery of Food and Safety. In Motomiya, 50 km East of the plant, the Caesium -137 concentration in ''kukitachina'' leaves was detected to be 164 times the accepted limit. The government called on consumers to avoid eating all eleven vegetables and all food exports from the contaminated areas have been banned.
This alarming rise in reports of radioactive contamination in Japan’s food chain and water supply demonstrates that the government’s constant reassurances and downplaying of the Fukushima nuclear crisis and risks public health are at best unreliable. The way to avoid this risk again is for governments around the world invest in energy efficiency and to redouble their efforts to harness safe and secure renewable energy sources.
Governments in Britain and abroad need to open their eyes – nuclear fuel is not safe and when a disaster occurs, the consequences can last for a lifetime. Remember, the buildings on the perimeter of Sizewell are now deemed to be nuclear waste – we don’t that to become one of our towns or cities.
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Monday, 28 March 2011
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
The four horsemen still loom
Back in the mid-1980s, CND was at its zenith and over a million peopled marched in London against nuclear weapons. In those heady days we truly believed we would see the end of trident and cruise missiles. But something went wrong.
Twenty-five years later we are still sitting on a nuclear arsenal and it is clear the vast majority have come to terms with the fact that we hold weapons of mass destruction on bases here in the UK. This is despite the moral issues or the economic costs.
Trident itself is now getting old and many have called for its replacement. The recent strategic review critically explored the costs of replacement and concluded:
Trident replacement, particularly given its dependence for the provision of missiles and missile launch technology on US-based contractors, will cost more jobs than it will generate
The cost of replacement, in the context of the existing crisis of the defence budget, will mean that a number of defence programmes scheduled for British industry over the coming decade will either be cancelled or significantly reduced
The most vulnerable programmes, both from the impact of Trident costs and the overall budget reduction, are in the areas of surface ships, jet fighters, helicopters and armoured vehicles as well as the servicing of airbases and dockyards. The cancellation of such programmes will endanger in excess of 10,000 jobs and is likely to result in the closure of major workplaces
The difficulty of reconciling the cost of Trident replacement with existing capital spending commitments is, as in past years in similar circumstances, likely to result in the Defence budget being overspent and hence impacting adversely on other government expenditure for public and social services
The vulnerability to employment loss as a result of Trident’s non-replacement will be most acute in Barrow-in-Furness and to a lesser extent in AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield.
This led to intense debate about whether we can afford to replace Trident, particularly when our deficit problems are so intense and all departments are facing extremely painful austerity measures.
The plan to replace Trident was set out in the White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” in December 2006. Expenditure on this was projected to be £200 million in 2008/09, £300 million in 2009/10 and £400 million in 2010/11. A report by the National Audit Office showed that in 2009/10 £39 million was allocated to concept work on the submarine platform and £64 million for the reactor. Around 150 designers and engineers are currently working at Barrow on the new submarine. Additional staff are employed by Rolls Royce and in the US. A Common Missile Compartment is being developed in America for the proposed British submarine and the US Ohio-replacement. Initial costs were borne entirely by the UK. Further costs over the next few years will be shared.
Although detailed annual costs are not available, the picture is one of an increasing workload and therefore of rising costs each year from 2010 until the peak in the second half of the decade. The projected annual expenditure on nuclear weapons of £2.1 billion is likely to rise to £2.5 billion shortly and then to around £3 billion by 2014. When the House of Commons debated the issue of Trident replacement in 2007, it did so on the assumption that the capital cost of the new equipment would be no more than £20 billion and that it would not come out of the defence budget. This £20 billion did not include the running costs of either the present or successor system or the disposal costs of nuclear waste and contamination. Their inclusion took the bill to at least the £80 billion cited by Lord Bramall. It is now becoming clear that the £20 billion capital cost was itself an underestimate. Public Accounts Committee recommendations included in the MoD’s 2010 Consolidated Resource Accounts draw attention to the submarine’s dependence ‘on a number of monopoly suppliers’ and the need to take action to prevent an escalation of costs. They also highlight the dependence on ‘an American supplied missile compartment’ and that the UK programme is running ahead of the United States’ programme presenting the danger of costly design problems for other aspects of the submarine.
Overall the ultimate capital cost of Trident replacement is therefore likely to be moving towards £30 billion (of which in excess of £2 billion will not be spent in Britain) – as against a lifetime saving of up to £100bn if the whole Trident programme were to be phased out.
Never mind the moral factors here – how can any government legitimise this kind of spending when they are facing a deficit of approximately £160bn? Scrapping Trident alone would save 2/3rds of the deficit at a stroke.
It just doesn’t make sense as seems to suggest that despite the fact we are a small nation, those in power want to make sure we can ‘play with the big boys’. Well, let’s be clear here – if any of those big boys wanted to take control of our country they could at a stroke. The threat will not come from nuclear weapons and it probably would not be chemicals either - both of those would cause mass contamination and could even be carried on the winds to infect their countries as well as ours.
No, the most obvious threat will come through cyberspace – Nuclear or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) bombs, viruses, worms, and hacking. If the governments IT system collapsed totally today its entire infrastructure would be at a standstill. It would affect all communication – our road, rail, sea and air transport systems. Our military option would be highly limited as so much depends on computers. Even our industrial strength is largely dependant on the use of IT.
Any external threat to this country could then just walk in, take control and enjoy the full wealth of the nation without a single loss of life and with the economic infrastructure fundamentally intact once the computer systems are brought back online.
As Libya, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries erupt; we must resurrect the movement for peace. The anti-Iraq war demonstrations show that the British people have not lost their commitment to opposing wars and fighting to eliminate the nuclear threat. But unless governments are brought to heal they will continue to build large-scale WMDs.
A generation ago we thought we had done the job – we hadn’t, the weapons stayed and we gave in. Now another generation face the risk of mass genocide on a level barely conceivable. We cannot afford to let them down.
Twenty-five years later we are still sitting on a nuclear arsenal and it is clear the vast majority have come to terms with the fact that we hold weapons of mass destruction on bases here in the UK. This is despite the moral issues or the economic costs.
Trident itself is now getting old and many have called for its replacement. The recent strategic review critically explored the costs of replacement and concluded:
Trident replacement, particularly given its dependence for the provision of missiles and missile launch technology on US-based contractors, will cost more jobs than it will generate
The cost of replacement, in the context of the existing crisis of the defence budget, will mean that a number of defence programmes scheduled for British industry over the coming decade will either be cancelled or significantly reduced
The most vulnerable programmes, both from the impact of Trident costs and the overall budget reduction, are in the areas of surface ships, jet fighters, helicopters and armoured vehicles as well as the servicing of airbases and dockyards. The cancellation of such programmes will endanger in excess of 10,000 jobs and is likely to result in the closure of major workplaces
The difficulty of reconciling the cost of Trident replacement with existing capital spending commitments is, as in past years in similar circumstances, likely to result in the Defence budget being overspent and hence impacting adversely on other government expenditure for public and social services
The vulnerability to employment loss as a result of Trident’s non-replacement will be most acute in Barrow-in-Furness and to a lesser extent in AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield.
This led to intense debate about whether we can afford to replace Trident, particularly when our deficit problems are so intense and all departments are facing extremely painful austerity measures.
The plan to replace Trident was set out in the White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” in December 2006. Expenditure on this was projected to be £200 million in 2008/09, £300 million in 2009/10 and £400 million in 2010/11. A report by the National Audit Office showed that in 2009/10 £39 million was allocated to concept work on the submarine platform and £64 million for the reactor. Around 150 designers and engineers are currently working at Barrow on the new submarine. Additional staff are employed by Rolls Royce and in the US. A Common Missile Compartment is being developed in America for the proposed British submarine and the US Ohio-replacement. Initial costs were borne entirely by the UK. Further costs over the next few years will be shared.
Although detailed annual costs are not available, the picture is one of an increasing workload and therefore of rising costs each year from 2010 until the peak in the second half of the decade. The projected annual expenditure on nuclear weapons of £2.1 billion is likely to rise to £2.5 billion shortly and then to around £3 billion by 2014. When the House of Commons debated the issue of Trident replacement in 2007, it did so on the assumption that the capital cost of the new equipment would be no more than £20 billion and that it would not come out of the defence budget. This £20 billion did not include the running costs of either the present or successor system or the disposal costs of nuclear waste and contamination. Their inclusion took the bill to at least the £80 billion cited by Lord Bramall. It is now becoming clear that the £20 billion capital cost was itself an underestimate. Public Accounts Committee recommendations included in the MoD’s 2010 Consolidated Resource Accounts draw attention to the submarine’s dependence ‘on a number of monopoly suppliers’ and the need to take action to prevent an escalation of costs. They also highlight the dependence on ‘an American supplied missile compartment’ and that the UK programme is running ahead of the United States’ programme presenting the danger of costly design problems for other aspects of the submarine.
Overall the ultimate capital cost of Trident replacement is therefore likely to be moving towards £30 billion (of which in excess of £2 billion will not be spent in Britain) – as against a lifetime saving of up to £100bn if the whole Trident programme were to be phased out.
Never mind the moral factors here – how can any government legitimise this kind of spending when they are facing a deficit of approximately £160bn? Scrapping Trident alone would save 2/3rds of the deficit at a stroke.
It just doesn’t make sense as seems to suggest that despite the fact we are a small nation, those in power want to make sure we can ‘play with the big boys’. Well, let’s be clear here – if any of those big boys wanted to take control of our country they could at a stroke. The threat will not come from nuclear weapons and it probably would not be chemicals either - both of those would cause mass contamination and could even be carried on the winds to infect their countries as well as ours.
No, the most obvious threat will come through cyberspace – Nuclear or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) bombs, viruses, worms, and hacking. If the governments IT system collapsed totally today its entire infrastructure would be at a standstill. It would affect all communication – our road, rail, sea and air transport systems. Our military option would be highly limited as so much depends on computers. Even our industrial strength is largely dependant on the use of IT.
Any external threat to this country could then just walk in, take control and enjoy the full wealth of the nation without a single loss of life and with the economic infrastructure fundamentally intact once the computer systems are brought back online.
As Libya, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries erupt; we must resurrect the movement for peace. The anti-Iraq war demonstrations show that the British people have not lost their commitment to opposing wars and fighting to eliminate the nuclear threat. But unless governments are brought to heal they will continue to build large-scale WMDs.
A generation ago we thought we had done the job – we hadn’t, the weapons stayed and we gave in. Now another generation face the risk of mass genocide on a level barely conceivable. We cannot afford to let them down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
