letters

To all Suffolk County Councillors November 2007

Dear ..........

The Shut Down Sizewell Campaign comprises over three hundred members, many of them living in Suffolk. I write on their behalf because we are concerned that the position the Council has taken on new nuclear build fails on the grounds both of morality and of the facts.

We use far more power than we need, we use it inefficiently and its existing production is unjustifiably harmful in its products and in its consequences, including those of nuclear waste, of global warming gases and of terrorist and accident risk. For so long as our culture’s values are based upon measures of quantity rather than of quality, and for so long as our goals are based on unsustainable fantasies of economic growth, we are condemned to continue in this selfish and greedy gallop towards climate disaster, and our local and national leaders remain guilty of misdirecting and failing us. With little difficulty you and the national government could lead us towards an age of energy thrift that would enable us to live lives of better quality, less damaging to the planet and leaving more environmental "space" for developing countries. The national government is deceiving us in pretending that the nuclear waste problem is solved, and you are as guilty as they are if you hold them to be correct knowing of this deceit. With the problem of existing nuclear waste unsolved, it is immoral to support the creation of any more waste from new nuclear stations, whether they are in Suffolk or not, for our descendants will bear the burden of our extravagance.

The facts you ignore concern the dangers to Suffolk from the existence of nuclear power stations, and the dangers to nuclear power stations on the Suffolk coast from erosion. The internationally respected consultant nuclear engineer Dr. John Large presented to a public meeting in Saxmundham on 12 July this year detailed evidence, which has not been refuted, that neither the existing nuclear stations on the Suffolk coast nor any new designs likely to be proposed there are safe against terrorist attack. He described the very possible consequences of a radioactive release from Sizewell as requiring the evacuation of Norwich within two hours, which infers that the whole of Suffolk might suffer the same fate. That the County emergency planning team still limits the emergency zone around Sizewell to 1.5 miles is a cause for extreme concern, since that condones the dishonest Government-promoted propaganda, belittling the risk of the stations, shelving your responsibility for Suffolk’s safety and making a laughing stock of your emergency planning.

When the British-Energy-sponsored report by the Met Office – on medium to long term coastal risks associated with British Energy Sites – was published earlier this year, it admitted that "the increases in future surge heights, when combined with wind speed increases, threaten some sites [including Sizewell] unless the existing defences are enhanced". Since then the trend of reliable reports - of increasing severity and imminence in sea level rise - has continued. In May the Jackson report warned of the already enormous cost of improving nuclear stations’ sea defences, and only so much concrete and rock may be deployed around Sizewell before it becomes counter-productive, diverting the sea unacceptably to batter neighbouring valuable land and facilities. It will be costly enough to protect the existing nuclear plant for as long as is necessary. It would be foolhardy to build new stations increasingly vulnerable as coastal instability gets worse. This is particularly so since new nuclear build is not necessary for our energy sufficiency and would not be ready in time to save run-away climate change, while producing vast amounts of unmitigated carbon dioxide over its fifteen year build-time.

The dangers to Sizewell are made far worse by the abundant international evidence that offshore dredging can exacerbate coastal erosion. The massive amount of dredging off the East Anglian coast is exactly the sort that is likely to increase the severity and acceleration of erosion along the Suffolk coast. This is not revealed by UK research which is nearly all carried out by the dredging companies themselves, and the Government is itself tardy in requiring detailed and meaningful studies, because it derives large revenues from the dredging licences it issues. Yet it is exactly this sort of bad faith that the County ought to be examining, since the Suffolk coast is under threat. The evidence from Holland is convincing: it has banned from its coasts offshore dredging because of the harm it is known to do, and imports marine aggregate from us. Under its nose, therefore, the County is tolerating the rape of its coastline by dredging, and is blithely supine about the additional reasons this provides against any new build at Sizewell.  

The County Council’s moral imperative and its duty to consider the facts - in order to protect its people - clearly require it to argue very strongly against any new nuclear build at Sizewell.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Lanyon

Vice-Chairman

To all Suffolk Coastal District Councillors November 2007

Dear..............

I write on behalf of the members of the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign to compliment Suffolk Coastal District Council for its stand on the right of the local community to reject plans for a Sizewell C nuclear power station if, after detailed local consideration, it is seen to be the correct decision for this district.

We fully support this position and are happy to make public our approval of your stance.

We wonder what happens next and how you will defend your position against any impositions the Government may make under its proposed revision of planning arrangements.

We shall be grateful if you will let us know of any ways in which we may help, and we suggest that the Nuclear Free Local Authorities Organisation would be able to provide much useful advice (leaflet enclosed).

With our best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Peter Lanyon

Vice-Chairman

home page---'aims'

newsletter one   -  newsletter two  -  newsletter three

environment   -   nuclear industry  

membership  -   climate change & the effects of air travel