http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/south-west/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-power-station/have-your-say/
Urgent responses needed
The Deadline for this objection is the 23 January 2012
The IPC (Infrastructure Planning Commission) is government funded and is meant to be independent.
However they are limited to engaging local communities tothe few villages and cities around Hinkley Point.
but we ca.n all register our concerns as it is after all a national infrastructure project.
"Your representation" maximum 500 words the following info exceed 500 words. The website for registration as an interested party is at the end of this document.
If you have time please use your own words, it will show a stronger and more determined opposition. Keep them busy!
IT'S IMPORTANT YOU COVER THE FOLLOWING POINT FOCUSING ON THE LOCAL IMPACT
1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals)
- Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic.
- Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF.
- Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF.
- 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village.
- These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution
- Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property..
-should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process.
2.Contamination of land
-EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!)
http://
3. Land Status
- designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA)
- a Site of Community Importance (SCI)
- the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance
- a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex)
- Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges.
-New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant.
4.Health
-Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children.
-Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health.
http://www.llrc.org/
http://
Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks.
5. Local Jobs
-EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery.
http://
http://www.youtube.com/
6. Democracy
-EDF consultations not widely publicised.
-There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
-The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear.
Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC)
-Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC.
-Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression
- The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk )
http://
7. Power lines
- new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width )
8. How local is locality?
-Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope.
-This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations.
Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders.
(We can also ask them to help us through the process)
Tel: 0303 444 5000 E-mail: ipcenquiries@infrastructur
http://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radfax is a Barnet Eye reader. Guest blogs are always welcome. Submit via link in the sidebar.
Note : The Barnet Eye focusess on local issues. I happen to agree with Radfax that nuclear power and the implications of accidents will affect the residents of Barnet.
5 comments:
Some comments:
1. The construction of any large infrastructure project creates construction traffic. Are we supposed to oppose them all?
2. If you remove the right-most point from figure 1 of the report, the fitted curve looks much less convincing. There's also no justification for using a log regression. Furthermore, figure 2 shows that any contamination from Hinckley is an order of magnitude below the background levels in much of the UK. Just because you can measure it (and it's not even clear that you can) doesn't mean that it's dangerous.
4. These numbers are disputable. Even the second report, which critiques the COMARE study,
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/documents/COMARE14report.pdf
only says that they should have been clearer about what "no significant increase" means.
Moreover, while a 22% increase in Leukaemia sounds scary, it's a 22% increase in a very rare event. To put it in context, a 1% increase in asthma or road traffic deaths would affect far more children.
6. Of course Fukushima had the potential to scare people about nuclear power. And since Fukushima was indeed a 40 year old reactor, and a pretty crap one at that, why is it sinister that the government thought that it might be necessary to try to point that out in the context of its current nuclear plans?
"the lie that Nuclear is a green technology". It's hard to think of a large-scale power generation technology suitable for the UK that produces less CO2 emissions (yes, one ought to factor in construction costs, but the same applies to wind and tidal).
Also, saying that Hinckley sits on the second biggest tidal wave in the world seems designed to mislead people into thinking about tsunamis. Hinckley has a large tidal range - it's completely different from a tsunami.
7. And? Are we supposed to prefer inefficient power distribution?
... 6. Reading the guardian article in more detail, I concede that there were people at the BIS who were prepared to sacrifice truthiness for PR. But there's no evidence for anyone "colluding to stop information coming out" - just junior officials acting hastily based on the early (mis)information being provided by the Japanese operators.
Joel,
You seem to know a lot, Leukaemia is rare I agree but surely any increase that can be prevented should be. Sadly my family lost an 8 year old bright and bubbly young man to Leukaemia and I am sure you would agree that we would have done anything to stop this happening. What i do find interesting is you refer to Asthma being a far greater impact even at 1% increase. In France it is now illegal to create a new school within a certain distance of a busy road. This will be a big issue in the UK as i understood that this was to be a large chunk of the GLA election debate. As yet nothing worth mentioning has been heard. Why is this? If your child is at a 30% higher risk of Asthma if they attend school within 100m of a busy road then what would be the risk if the school was 20m from a road known to carry 60,000 cars a day? If a play area for a proposed school fails the air quality safety levels do you think it is sufficient to simply withdraw the children from the area that has been monitered and hope that the further real time surveys don't throw up a larger than thought area by which time it is too late? No longer can it be accepted to smoke in public areas, why. because pollution moves. wind direction as you quite rightly point out is a material consideration. Consider this, some children only have one Asthma attack and they don't survive it. Who is liable? the local Council if they know there is a danger yet agree to further investiagation once occupation takes place. Would you as a parent sign a disclaimer in order to send your child to that school? Without a full and detailed explanation would that document stand? It's a bit like deciding which child gets the lap belt on the back seat. Ok, if nothing happens, a disaster if someone drives in to the back of you. Sadly this is not a hypathetical question it is under consideration in Barnet.
Local people have now occupied part of the Hinkley C site, to stop EDF's "preparatory works" which involve turning 400 hectares of beautiful West Somerset landscape into roads and foundations for an unnecessary nuclear power station that hasn't even got permission yet.
Please consider coming down to the occupation to show your support, and spread the word far and wide.
http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/...
https://www.facebook.com/pages...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en...
Sorry, links got cut off, and should read:
http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/content/nuclear-reactor-site-occupied
https://www.facebook.com/pages/SEIZE-THE-DAY/97619367824
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/02/492309.html
Post a Comment