NUCLEAR POWERED POLITICS
Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site
LAUGHING BOY: SHOULD HE BE SECTIONED? - Is the UK in the hands of a nuclear junkie? Allegedly swapping favours with the likes of BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and Lockheed Martin. Three of the big players in the manufacture of nuclear weapons & atomic cronies, guilty of ecocide, if there were such a crime on the statute books.
We know that on the 18th of December 2020, a Christmas party was held at Number 10 Downing Street, during a tier 3 Covid 19 lockdown, and that Bojo wants compulsory Covid jabs for NHS staff, in violation if their Human Rights, sparking protests on the streets of London. Haven't we been here before with Maggie Thatcher and the Poll Tax? That tells us that he doesn't give a fig about sticking to the rules. Remember the Drax biofuel generating station, based on tree planting as a carbon offset. Who thought up that one? Doesn't anyone know that trees take a lot longer to grow, than this power station consumes them. Then there is Hinkley Point and Sizewell C. Doesn't anybody in the Cabinet know nuclear power is more expensive than renewables, and what about radioactive waste management, that is impossible to say is safe - sometimes for hundreds of thousands of years. All the management corporations will cease to exist. Leaving the taxpayer footing the bill. So, how come Sizewell and Hinkley Point were even considered, and what about that subsidy, making electricity more expensive for the consumer?
With so much corruption in British politics, Part Time Parliament, and the consultancy fee culture, you can bet it is going to be hard to rid ourselves of radiation risks. Not until something dreadful happens, and then it is "we told you so." But by then it is too late and Boris will be long gone. Or he might wish to be!
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING PROLIFERATION
If you thought Brexshit was a bum deal, take a look at the Conservative Party's nuclear powered policies. We argue that in all policies and economic balancing, sustainability should be the overarching rule, inflexibly applied - unless it is impossible to achieve without stooping to radiation poisoning and radioactive leaks. When, in such circumstances, there must be 100% transparency as to reasons.
Sustainable development is defined as:
"development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
As there are so many unknowns and risks that cannot be predicted, it could be argued that we must not add to the ordinary radiation doses that just living on earth represents. Rather insanely, UK Strategy does not set individual site limits for radioactive discharges. Most obviously, building in a get out clause for offenders. But any way you look at it, the existence of nuclear power COMPROMISES THE ABILITY OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. And that is because, we need renewables now for the immediate future. Installing nuclear reactors is draining money and effort in the right direction. Also, lulling the electorate into a false sense of safety. While also violating the United Nation's SDG 7: clean, affordable energy for everyone.
Nuclear (pink) electricity is not affordable and produces contaminated waste that simply builds up and up, costing more and more. So it's not CLEAN or AFFORDABLE.
FREUDIAN SHOWBOATING - You know what they say about the length of your bonnet and uniforms. This picture most likely excites the warmongers in the Cabinet. Time for another party and more affairs - of state. This is the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier that the UK did not need, and the pubic did not get a say on the spend. We imagine all the homeless people, and those wanting cheaper electricity and zero emission transport, might have objected to the cost of building and running this nuclear liability. In climate terms, the carbon footprint of such posturing in far too high in terms of human lives and financial slavery. £billions of pounds wasted, not including the procurement fraud - and failure of the police to investigate.
At section 3.3.4 it is stated that:
"Radioactive waste should not be created unless the practice giving rise to it
That is the whole point of our objection. You cannot have nuclear weapons and power generation without creating substantial dumps of stored radioactive waste. But then, we do not need nuclear power generation. DO WE NEED IT? Indeed, pink electricity is more expensive that green electricity - almost twice the price. So why even contemplate it? WE DON'T NEED IT - IT CAN BE AVOIDED.
The reason why governments seem to like a bit of nuclear on the side (apart from France, who like it so much they bathe in it) appears to be to reprocess weapons grade uranium, for civilian use. So, offsetting the cost of operating weapons for their military. Then imposing unnecessary energy price hikes on the ordinary citizen. When the citizen does not know how they are being exploited by their military regimes.
There is a total lack of transparency, and they won't tell the truth.
You will notice that reprocessing and spent fuel enrichment is the most radioactive part of the processes. Hence, the most dangerous and risky. So why bother?
This has the effect of passing on the waste storage and management from the military to the man in the street, making it look like the military waste disposal problem is negligible compared with power generation disposal from civil use.
TALK ABOUT MASSAGING THE FIGURES!
You can imagine then, that for Russia and the US, the disposal problem is massive. See an example of nuclear powered ship decommissioning costs.
That brings us back to defence and warmongering. Defence contracts are notorious for the level of procurement fraud. Where the UK is rife with backhanders in the form of consultancy payments to serving members of parliament, cash for questions and the like. The system is open to extraordinary levels of abuse and conflicts of interest. And what with Mr Johnson's propensity to grab cash for his decorating and defence of colleagues who breach codes of conduct, Bojo should not be let anywhere near the MOD and third party contractors such a Rosatom. He likes his cake too much.
Put simply, we do not need any more Trident intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles (ICBMs), cruise missiles, submarines or aircraft carriers. We already have enough to blow ourselves sky high. You can only be killed once. Why have weapons that can kill the entire population of planet earth, two or three times over? When all that achieves is more waste to manage, imposing an indefinite tax on voters of the future, who may not agree on a pollution based economy.
Defence innovation should concentrate on more invasion off-putting measures such as robot infantrymen with serious firepower and self destruct functions. There is little point invading a country that is defended by fearless robotic automatons. If your ground troops and Armour is neutralized in the process.
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS ILLEGAL AS OF JANUARY 2021
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the first international ban on nuclear weapons, came into force on January 22nd 2021.
The treaty will continue to grow and integrate into the international system well beyond its entry into force in January 2021. The norm established by previous weapons prohibitions impacted banks, companies, and government policies in countries that had not joined the treaty, and the same can be expected for the nuclear prohibition.
The UK and USA have been engaged in the development of civil nuclear power for over 50 years, since the end of the Second World War. The nuclear industry can be divided into five sectors:
1. nuclear fuel manufacture and uranium enrichment,
2. nuclear energy production,
3. spent fuel reprocessing,
4. research facilities and
Radioactive wastes, some of which may be discharged into the environment
as liquids, gases, mists or dusts are generated by the use of radioactive
materials in a wide range of day-to-day applications. Such discharges are
regulated under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93) and are subject to strict limits where appropriate, in line with the regulators‟ own
limit setting criteria.
is clear from these charts that spent fuel re-processing and nuclear
fuel enrichment are the main causes of Alpha and Beta discharges from
the nuclear sectors. The figure for Defence is misleading and a
When we didn't know any better, giant steel tubes carrying nuclear missiles seemed like one way of keeping bullies in check. In 2022 we have robotics, autonomous fleet control soft and hardware. Hence, keeping these liabilities at sea at huge expense to the taxpayer, is unsustainable. A cheap drone can sink one of these $billion dollar behemoths just as easy as a destroyer. Much as we appreciate the pomp and ceremony, and battleships of yore pounding each other with cannon balls. Those days are over. Or, they should be.
When Boris Johnson campaigned to get elected as the new conservative prime minister, there was no mention of nuclear weapons proliferation, in denial of his duty to advise the electorate on his important policy agenda up front. Keeping quiet on the subject is not a defence, such as to omit vital information (oops I forgot to mention that). When it comes to fraud - there is a positive duty imposed under the Fraud Act 2006.
Almost everything Bojo touches turns to crap. He's the opposite of Austin Power's arch rival 'Goldmember.' He is 'Shitfinger,' in a proposed James Bond style spoof of British politics that would certainly involve a Shaguar. Yeh Baby! Voila, his handling of compulsory Covid jabs for NHS workers. Never mind their human rights.
BRITAIN GOT ANOTHER BUM DEAL - In electing a clown as Prime Minister, UK voters made one of the biggest mistakes in British political history. Brexit was and is a disaster, costing pensioners an absolute fortune, as real world inflation halved the value of their savings, with timber, copper and other commodities doubling in price in 2021. What is in store for 2022? Then there is the energy crises and nuclear power, with food prices rising. We feel sure that Dr Hannibal Lecter would like to have his old friend for dinner. It might be that some Conservative Party members might also want to join in the feast, for bringing the party into disrepute. Save a slice for us!
Discharges from five nuclear sectors are considered in the strategy: nuclear
fuel production and uranium enrichment, nuclear energy production, spent
fuel reprocessing, research facilities and defence facilities.
Intermediate objective (2020):
For a particular process, BAT will change with time in the light of technological advances, economic and social factors, as well as changes in scientific knowledge and understanding. If the reduction of discharges and emissions resulting from the use of BAT does not lead on environmentally acceptable results, additional measures have to be applied. “Techniques” include both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and dismantled.
Further international controls on radioactive wastes, including discharges, are provided by the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, to which the UK is a Contracting Party. This convention, which entered into force in June 2001, provides for a system of regular peer reviews of the policies and practices of radioactive waste management in each Contracting Party. The UK must provide a national report under the convention every three years for peer review under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is an Agency of the United Nations. In addition, the IAEA Radioactive Waste Safety Standards system provides a hierarchy of documents, from broad principles to detailed guidance, on all aspects of radioactive waste management.
2.2.6 OSPAR Convention:
The UK is also a Contracting Party to
the OSPAR Convention. As a general obligation, OSPAR Contracting Parties
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter 1972 (the London Convention) regulates dumping at sea. A 1993 Resolution under this convention banned
the sea disposal of low level radioactive waste and, together with earlier
resolutions, effectively imposed a complete ban on the sea dumping of all
radioactive waste. The UK took a decision in 1982 to discontinue sea disposal
operations. Operational discharges to sea from land-based installations and
offshore platforms are not covered by the London Convention.
UNCLOS, 1982, requires contracting parties to take necessary measures to ensure effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from exploration for or exploitation of resources on or under the seabed. It also requires ships carrying nuclear cargoes through the territorial sea to carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established in international agreements regarding such transports.
AN EXPENSIVE EMBARRASSMENT - Why would anyone in their right mind build a nuclear powered cargo ship. Especially where it is used to transport chilled fish. Anyone for a radioactive fish finger?
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP):
on the control of radiation exposure has long been based upon acceptance of
the recommendations of the appropriate international bodies. The ICRP has
recommended a system of radiological protection based on the principles of
justification of activities involving ionising radiation, optimisation of protection
and dose limitation. Further recommendations have built on this system and
have introduced the use of dose constraints and risk constraints.
The NIA 65 requires sites where
specific nuclear activities are undertaken to be licensed by the HSE. The NII
within the HSE‟s Nuclear Directorate regulates the storage and accumulation
of radioactive waste on these nuclear licensed sites.
3.1.2 These policies contribute to the priority areas for action contained in the Government‟s revised strategy for sustainable development, "One Future – Different Paths)"19 which was published in 2005. This sets out a common framework across the entire UK. The four sustainable priority areas for action up to 2020 are:
3.1.3 The priority areas are underpinned by five guiding principles:
SIMPLE MATHS - As we know from Bojo's big red bus, he cannot add up. His weakness in the mathematics department has meant the UK guaranteeing EDF almost double the renewable (green) rate for nuclear powered (pink) electricity. Put that into perspective, we are paying more for power and stockpiling radioactive waste without any long-term management plan. It is a suicide pact with the devil, that warmongers all over the world love. They are hoodwinking the public even more that with Brexit's big red bus.
MORE SHIT: HORIZON EUROPE
No wonder the EU won't let us into Horizon Europe, an innovation initiative worth around €100 Billion Euros. The EU have refused to countenance the UK in such research and development opportunities, thus costing Britain significantly, not only in monetary terms, but also being denied benefit from the research, leaving the UK in isolation in terms of technology. Where if you are not keeping up with developments, you are going backwards.
Boris seems not to have included such matters in his calculations as to the cost of Britain's exit from Europe - along with so much more - that had the electorate been appropriately informed, they would then have been in a position to make a decision as to which way to vote.
That is why in politics, we say it is imperative to change the law, to introduce a written constitution with laws that prevent politicians lying during campaigning, during speeches in parliament and when reporting treasury figures, that should be in a clear and easy to understand format that is accessible, for complete transparency.
Are we asking for too much? Of course not, we just want the truth. Then we can see much sooner when a Bozo is at the helm.
The British administration, (presumably) as appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, in good faith, is a nation that oft-times, and perceptibly misguidedly, rewards maladministration with honours, allegedly. Many beleive that the monarchy is breaking down. Australia is heading toward a Republic. Princes Charles and Andrew are the subject of investigation, leaving just Kate and William squeaky clean. But with family duties that might detract from making important decisions, like ensuring that those elected by the public, are actually fit to hold office - in being truthful as a basic prerequisite. There is no room for liars in a Britain with a written constitution. They cost the country too much. Between 2019 and 2022, mostly pensioners savings. At least those working are being paid at the going rate. Pensioners have paid the price. You only get one life.
As we head towards the monarch's 96th birthday in 2022, we hope to help this nation transform into a bastion of transparency and virtue in United Nations and Universal Declaration terms by revealing issues and lost opportunities that are having a braking effect on the development of a sustainable society that admonishes climate and eco criminals, who should never be allowed to hold office again. Ultimately, this is up to the electorate. Please do not vote for any prospective member of parliament who does not stand for action against climate change, or advocate environmentally suicidal policies, such as increasing our nuclear arsenal.
“What is not honest and what is economically illiterate is to say we can have all the economic benefits of being in the EU and at the same time leave. That is having your cake and eating it.”
What do you suppose George might make of nuclear proliferation?
Germany: cost of nuclear energy
Department of Energy & Climate Change
PENSIONS and INHERITANCE TAX
One way of avoiding pumping up Income Tax, is to pump un National Insurance Contributions, and claw back money from savings vested in property; taxing the avid saver on his or her deathbed, via a slice of their property or properties. These savings should have been passed to the children of those responsible enough to make such provision.
Conservative politics is based on delaying economic shortcomings by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Another example of which is over-paying for roads and only 5% of your hard earned taxes going to road building and repairs. That is why we have so many potholes: hence, pothole politics. The evidence for which on on the streets and highways in your area. In Sussex the busy A271, makes commuting to Hastings or Hailsham dangerous, where the tarmac is narrow and flooding is likely to increase. Why is it so bad? Because under Cameron, May and now BoJo, they are turning our villages into housing estates, without the proper highways infrastructure, including drainage. See Suicide Junction, as a prime example of planning madness.
DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS - We pay our taxes but get no value for all our hard earned pounds. Don't forget that our income is taxed along with just about everything we buy. Even buying a house is subject to stamp duty and dying also costs money with death duties. Shit! How are they getting away with bleeding the electorate dry like this? Fuel is taxed, drinks are taxed (that's okay by us), and using roads is taxed. Then there is car tax of course. We heard they are thinking of taxing sex, based on the length of your Johnson. What you may have noticed, is that since Brexit, the roads have not improved. Nor has the NHS, so what was all that bollocks bravado the public actually swallowed.
LINKS & REFERENCE
Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site