Student Xpress Homepage | CSPE | Educational Supplement | Career Guidance | Student Articles | Features

Volume 1 (1999/2000)
Issue 1 (March 1999)
Issue 2 (Nov. 1999)
Issue 3 (Dec. 1999)
Issue 4 (Feb. 2000)
Issue 5 (March 2000)
Issue 6 (April 2000)
Issue 7 (May 2000)

Volume 2 (2000/2001)
Issue 1 (Sept. 2000)
Issue 2 (Oct. 2000)
Issue 3 (Jan. 2001)
Issue 4 (March 2001)
Issue 5 (April 2001)
Issue 6 (May 2001)

Volume 3 (2001)
Issue 1 (Sept. 2001)
Issue 2 (Nov. 2001)

Categories
Sport: 1 2 3
Lifestyles: 1 2 3
Commentary: 1 2 3
Review: 1 2 3
Writing: 1 2 3
Event: 1 2 3

Nuclear Power

Siobhan Connell
Loreto, Navan

Siobhan Connell examines the controversial issue of nuclear power

Every day we put our fate into the hands of people who time and time again have shown their own complete incompetence and who, according to Friends of the Earth, cannot be trusted. Yet we continue to allow such people to have control over our fate and that of generations to come.

When entering the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Cumbria one can not help but be left in awe at its vast expanse. It spreads over several square miles and employs over ten thousand people. As well as the reprocessing facilities the plant consists of several hundred buildings including a launderette and its very own bank! About half a mile away from the facility itself there is a visitors centre which is surprisingly bright and cheerful. It is full of overpriced ornaments and souvenirs that you would expect to see at a museum or an aquarium. Free bus tours around the facility itself are available to everyone but it can be a little off putting when before you are allowed enter the facility you must sign your name, address and nationality on to your ticket. No cameras or camcorders are allowed and before entering the plant the bus is boarded by two police officers making security checks. On this tour the bus stops in certain spots where you can get the best views of the plant and informative videos are shown about what you are looking at. You are not allowed off the bus.

You are also informed that records of all waste generated by the plant are available on computers in the visitors' centre. However, after reading a damning report on Sellafield published in February, it is hard to believe any information Sellafield or BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels Ltd) has to offer. In this report (which resulted in the resignation of the chief executive of BNFL) it was revealed that due to falsifications by employees in safety reports BNFL had lost the trust of two of its major international customers. Last December faulty MOX fuel produced by BNFL caused a reactor in Switzerland to rupture and leak radiation. The Japanese government discovered that it too had received a batch of this fuel and is demanding that BNFL take it back. BNFL's credibility was further damaged by reports that it was practically impossible to guarantee the quality and therefore the safety of its MOX fuel.

A series of incidents over a period of time bring BNFL's safety standards seriously into question. Last year a tanker that had been used to transport liquid radioactive waste was stolen and was found two months later being used by a wine factory. It is also facing prosecution for an incident at Sellafield in March last year when two workers received severe burns following a spill of nitric acid in Sellafield's newly built Solvent Treatment Plant. In the February safety report twenty-eight recommendations were made to improve safety and indicated that if progress of this issue is inadequate, the government would not hesitate to use its enforcement powers, including closing down the site.

The loss of their major overseas clients, Japan and Switzerland would hit BNFL very hard as they are crucial to their survival. Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner Shaun Burnie has said that "if BNFL was not a taxpayer funded enterprise they would now be out of business." The February report suggested that as a result of efforts to make the company attractive for privatisation, managers had diverted as much of 50% of their time from operational matters - adversely affecting plant safety.

It is not just Sellafield that is called into question. The Dounreay plant in Scotland is known to be contaminating local beaches. The 1984 discovery of a radioactive particle on the popular beach, Sandside, about a mile from Dounreay was dismissed as a 'one off' however new contamination is still being found in and around Dounreay. Research by the British government advisory committee COMARE has suggested a possible link with the use of local beaches such as Sandside and earlier reports on a childhood leukemia cluster near Dounreay. Several years ago a senior researcher said he would not take his children onto local beaches. This comment was repeated by the Scottish Protection Agency's inspector Hugh Fearn but he added, that the risks to humans were minimal.

To see the extreme risks we take by using nuclear power one only has to look at the horrific Chernobyl incident, which is still affecting the world fourteen years on. There has been a big increase in thyroid cancer in women in Scotland since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Official figures from the Cancer Registration Statistics Office show an increase of over 45 per cent - there were 250 more cases of thyroid cancer in women than would have been predicted, a statistically significant increase. It is suggested inhaling radioactive iodine from Chernobyl pollution could be the cause.

In conclusion I believe that the nuclear industry does have a future, but only if safety standards can be implemented. Only with such changes can it provide long-term jobs, safeguard the environment for future generations and secure a stake for Britain as a processor of nuclear waste generated by the nuclear industry world-wide.

Back to the top


Student Xpress Homepage | CSPE | Educational Supplement | Career Guidance | Student Articles | Features