Thursday, December 8, 2011

George Monbiot (We need to talk about Sellafield nuclear solution ticks all our boxes, December 6.) Anti-nuclear activists complained that threw into reverse the scientific process: "People have started with their conclusions, then frantically looked for evidence to support them. "

Around 1995 to 1996 I worked for Nirex, the industry-owned body in charge of nation Dealing with the stock of nuclear waste. In 1992, a decision was essentially political and financial should have made this great waste in underground tunnels dug on land at Sellafield nuclear industry.

Tens of millions of pounds were spent

experiments, scientists, consultants, lawyers, public figures, and so on, to deliver the project. DURING a team of five months of public inquiry to us was working near Sellafield, has lived and drunk as Sellafield nuclear share in the community. We were there to justify the decision had already been made that year and to persuade independent inspector and the Secretary of State, to grant planning permission is necessary.

During the investigation, the cash-stretched local authorities, and some environmental activists dedicated trimmed box Nirex (including security issues). When they dashed holes in our case, our numbers and our arguments, we stayed late to try 'em work again and bridge the gap. It was about hard work (I hate to admit it) Near pleasure. It was easy to quell any doubts about the rightness of what we were there to promote. In retrospect, the "single thought" was evident.

In the end, we have failed. The inspector courageous and independent-minded recommended that the Secretary of State to refuse permission, which, credit history, then fired, John Gummer. They did not, then drums of nuclear waste buried in a landfill today would be nuclear Being in Cumbria, which could, could not gold, were strong in the long term.

So while George Monbiot is right when it comes to anti-nuclear, they are certainly not the only ones to throw back in the scientific process.

ironically, to exchange the planning system is now means Proposals for new nuclear facilities subject to such a thing will not review that we endure. My personal experience leads me to fear for the results.

Name and Address Supplied

. George Monbiot

not talking about Sellafield, have a go at it anti-nuclear environmentalists and propose a technical solution for nuclear waste. If HE had to come to know that we have had two Sellafield reprocessing plant (Thorp and Mox) that do not work and, yes, a lot of highly dangerous nuclear waste that the industry and politicians have neglected for the past 60 years. The fate of this is currently being "consulted on" among residents of Cumbria, who are asked whether local councils should volunteer to host a deep repository (somewhere unspecified) for high and medium level two of waste. It also depends on a technical solution unsuitable geology Since the SI, the SI unproven technology, there are more than 100 design flaws - and it will be huge engineering projects year on the back door of the national park the Lake District.


already spent fuel we have here could be persuaded without much difficulty to devastate a large area of ??the planet. The Mox plant malfunction costing us £ 90m a year (and one that is proposed - without fuel for customers). Who is peddling snake oil - an environmentalist and business in the nuclear industry? What techniques to correct our hopes Must pin? How green is the year of hosting for a small but significant chance of a nuclear disaster at Sellafield and the prospect of ruin of the western Lake District

Dr Ruth Balogh

West Cumbria & North Lakes Friends of the Earth nuclear campaigner

. George Monbiot that he demeans involving all anti-nuclear activists are unaware Ranters, and waving the disgraceful Dr Chris Busby years as an archetype. This cuts out any possibility of a reasonable dialogue about the real advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy.

The integral fast reactor (IFR) and a few others that portray Monbiot Some have many perfect solution is not easy or as available as Involves ET. It would be cooled by liquid sodium, a very difficult technology has been removed by the United States, France and FR (at Dounreay). The new form of reprocessing that could allow IFR to use waste as a fuel source has its own never been tested. Neither PERMITTED everyone is IFR proliferation resistant as claimed by ET. Although the development of the IFR should be continued - and successful - it would be decades before they can contribute to the generation of electricity helpful.
Would not it be better to use

time, effort and cost of trying to develop the IFR to develop a better, safer and inexpensive generation of renewable forms of energy and, above all, energy storage

Professor Eric Eisenhandler

Queen Mary, University of London

. While Georgia is now a pro-nuclear "green", is it? What nonsense. Green Is not nuclear, it is not only dangerous, it has the potential effect of declaring that the death zone accident years uninhabitable If the UK or the year of accident. Why should we even take the risk of destroying our country for when renewables can easily supply all our electricity needs several times

What we get from George is the usual drivel from the nuclear lobby: "Of course, we trust," "It makes financial sense, it Cheap Much, "" Chernobyl could never happen, Don 't worry. "

Let the record straight: nuclear power is not green and it is not a cheap option - in fact there several times more expensive to taxpayers in general.

Find best price for : --many----Busby----Chris----George----what----Sellafield----Monbiot--


Blog Archive