NUCLEAR POWERED POLITICS TRIDENT ICBM MISSILES SUBMARINES AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND ELECTRICITY GENERATING POWER STATIONS RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING

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!

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.

"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.

"Radioactive waste should not be created unless the practice giving rise to it
has been justified and the generation of waste cannot be avoided."

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.

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.

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.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the first international ban on nuclear weapons, came into force on January 22nd 2021.

It joins the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention as a treaty prohibiting weapons of mass destruction. The treaty has widespread support in the international community in that 122 countries voted for its adoption in 2017, and these countries have continued to express their support for the treaty .

The Treaty is not merely symbolic. It prohibits Members from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using (or threatening to use) nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits States from assisting, encouraging, or inducing states to engage in any of these prohibited activities. Presumably then, those still using nuclear weapons will be poisoning their land for future generations to clean up, since dumping waste at sea is illegal.

Any NATO State may join the Treaty and remain in the alliance as long as that state renounces participation in the nuclear dimension of the alliance and indicates that it does not support activities prohibited by the treaty.

International treaties reinforce norms and provide a forum to discuss and condemn violations of international standards for peace and security.

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 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is sure to impact non compliant nations in other ways. In the meantime we imagine that the treaty will provide concrete assistance for victims of nuclear weapons use and testing and contribute to remediating radiologically contaminated areas.

Where North Korea is playing catch-up, signs of cease-fire internationally may play a part in persuading new faces as to the futility of wasting climate dollars entering the cold arms race that nobody wants other than the military, hoping to build their part.

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:

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.

The Scottish Government‟s statutory guidance to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) was published in Spring 2008, following an earlier consultation.

It 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 calculated deception.

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.

OSPAR Radioactive Substances Strategy (RSS)*

To prevent pollution of the maritime area, as defined under the Convention, from ionising radiation, through progressive and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances. The ultimate aim is to achieve concentrations in the environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances. In achieving this objective, the following issues should, inter alia, be taken into account:

 legitimate uses of the sea;
 technical feasibility;
 radiological impacts to man and biota.

By the year 2020, the OSPAR Commission will ensure that discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances are reduced to levels where the additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels, resulting from such discharges, emissions and losses, are close to zero.

* Radioactive Substance Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic, 1998.

The 2002 Strategy covered liquid radioactive discharges from nuclear licensed sites, defence facilities and “other sources of discharges”, including non-nuclear industries, such as for medical applications. Its focus was on liquid discharges to sea from coastal nuclear installations, on the assumption that, in general, these would have the largest and most measurable effects in the marine environment.

BAT is a term defined in the OSPAR Convention and European Council Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). These definitions are essentially the same. OSPAR: BAT means the latest stage of development (state of the art) of processes, of facilities, or of methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of a particular measure for limiting discharges, emissions and waste.

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.

Council Directive 96/61/EC: BAT is the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicates the practicable suitability of particular techniques for providing the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent, and where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole.

ii Within a particular waste management option, BPM is that level of management and engineering control that minimises, as far as practicable, the release of radioactivity to the environment whilst taking account of a wider range of factors, including cost-effectiveness, technological status, operational safety, and social and environmental factors. (Taken from Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy (Cm2919), HMG, July 1995.)

iii The outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure which emphasizes the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefit or least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term. (Taken from Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 12th Annual Report, 1988.)

Agencies: The Radiation Protection Division of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) (formerly the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)) has responsibility for providing information and advice on protection from radiation risks, and for undertaking research to advance knowledge about protection from these risks.

Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management:

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.

The UK is also a Contracting Party to the OSPAR Convention. As a general obligation, OSPAR Contracting Parties
shall, in accordance with the provisions of the convention, take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate unnecessary pollution, taking into account BAT, and shall take the necessary measures to protect the maritime
environment against the adverse effects of human activities in the north east Atlantic. The OSPAR RSS sets objectives and targets for radioactive discharges, which are set out in paragraph 1.3 of this Strategy. In addition, in the 1998 Sintra Statement, Ministers undertook to pay particular attention to the safety of workers in nuclear installations.

London Convention:

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.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):

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?

UK policy 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.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): UNSCEAR was established by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1955. Its mandate is to assess and report levels and effects of exposure to ionising radiation. UNSCEAR reports are used by the international community as principal sources of information and as the scientific basis for evaluating radiation risk and for establishing protective measures.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) sites are excluded from statutory regulation under RSA93, although the environmental regulators exercise an equivalent system of controls by administrative means. Statutory regulation is, however, applied to the licensed sites at the Atomic Weapons Establishments (AWE) at Aldermaston and Burghfield and to the Royal Dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth, which are operated by civilian contractors. The Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR) is the MoD regulator for nuclear and radiological safety and environmental protection in the defence nuclear programmes, with a primary focus on regulating those aspects of the defence nuclear programmes that are exempt from legislation. DNSR works closely with the relevant statutory regulators.

Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (NIA 65):

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.

The need to achieve a sustainable balance

3.1.1 The principal objectives of this Strategy are to implement the UK‟s obligations in respect of the OSPAR RSS and to achieve progressive and substantial reductions in radioactive discharges. However in working towards the achievement of these objectives we expect the Strategy to also support the achievement of several other Government policies:

 managing waste sustainably;
 decoupling environmental degradation from economic growth;
 cleaner, safer and more biologically diverse seas; and
 improving the quality of river water .

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:

 sustainable consumption and production;
 climate change and energy;
 natural resource protection and environmental enhancement; and
 sustainable communities.

Linked to these priority areas is, in many cases, a need to change behaviour and public perception.

 Living within environmental limits
 Achieving a sustainable economy
 Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
 Promoting good governance
 Using sound science responsibly

In working towards it an analysis of the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development needs to be carried out and a balance struck when making decisions about the best way to take policy objectives forward. It should be noted that UK research and development supports nuclear industry activities that may result in discharge reductions. In relation to reducing radioactive discharges and achieving a balance, some flexibility is needed to safeguard other Government objectives.

 In healthcare, balancing the health and economic benefits of radio-pharmaceuticals against the radioactive discharges resulting from their use and manufacture;

 In defence, balancing the national security benefits of maintaining defence operational capability with the radioactive discharges that arise from defence operations and activities;

 In securing the UK‟s energy supply, as a basic requirement of sustainable development, including potential new nuclear build in England and Wales, and the possibility of extending the operational lives of existing Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) nuclear power reactors;

 In the decommissioning and clean-up of nuclear facilities and remediation of contaminated land, balancing the benefits of hazard reduction and environmental restoration against the discharges generated from the processing of radioactive materials and wastes.

3.3.3 In England, the Government‟s approach to sustainable waste management is based on the Defra waste hierarchy (Figure 3.2), with similar waste hierarchies (sharing a common philosophy) applying in the Devolved Administrations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The waste hierarchy is a cornerstone of the UK‟s waste management strategy.

3.4.7 It is important to ensure that discharge reductions are not achieved at the expense of unacceptable increased accident risk, due, for instance, to storage of greater quantities of waste on site, for a longer time, in unsatisfactory conditions.

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.

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.

Boris Johnson

Rishi Sunack

Priti Patel

Liz Truss

Stephen Barclay

Ben Wallace

Lord David Frost

Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Sajid Javid

Nadhim Zahawi

Nadine Dorries

Kwasi Kwateng

Michael Gove

Therese Coffey

Dominic Raab

Grant Shapps

George Eustice

Brandon Lewis

Alister Jack

Simon Hart

Baroness Evans

Oliver Dowden

Alok Sharma

Nigel Adams

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.”

Department of Energy & Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place
London SW1AP 2HH
Telephone: 0300 068 4000
Website: www.decc.gov.uk

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.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/george-osborne-treasury-brexit_uk_5714c297e4b0f22f0219d7ad