From the Scottish Government today:
The Scottish Government commissioned independent researchers, Diffley Partnership, to conduct a public attitudes survey for Scotland exploring attitudes towards radioactive waste management. The primary aim of this study was to design and deliver research that will help develop a deeper understanding of the views of the Scottish public on a range of radioactive waste management issues, including safety and trust in government and industry.
The vast majority (89%) of respondents reported that they were either not very well informed or not at all informed about radioactive waste management in Scotland
Potential for radioactive leaks (72%) was one of the main concerns about the development of new facilities, along with the possible environmental effects (73%) and health impacts (71%).
In terms of trust, 7 out of 10 trusted academics while less than 5 trusted the industry.
The research had no review of previous research such as these below.
Why Germany shut down nuclear:
On 30th June 2011, the German Bundestag voted to phase out nuclear energy.
Why?
Safety was a paramount concern in the decision to phase out nuclear power: the use of nuclear energy causes highly dangerous radioactive radiation for humans and the environment and leaves behind highly toxic waste. High safety precautions must be taken throughout the entire life cycle – from the extraction of the raw material uranium to the production of the fuel, the operation of nuclear power plants and final disposal. This is the only way to reduce risks to humans and the environment, and to prevent misuse.
Yet, in the past, there have been several serious accidents that had catastrophic consequences for society and the environment affected. This is why the German society concluded that the risks of this technology exceeded the benefits, and subsequently decided to phase-out the use of nuclear energy. 1
What was the research evidence upon which they made this momentous decision?
This research from Germany published in October 2008 in Deutsches Ärzteblatt International:
An association was found between the nearness of residence to nuclear power plants and the risk of leukemia (593 cases, 1766 controls). Within the 5-km zone, the OR for the development of leukemia in children under 5 years of age was 2.19 compared to the rest of the region, and this elevation of the OR was statistically significant. The incidence of leukemia in the overall study region was the same as that in Germany as a whole (SIR=0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.92–1.07). 2
The authors held back from directly attributing the leukemia cases to radiation from the plants, as impartial researchers must, and UK Government commentary in March 2010 attempted to dismiss its findings as an outlier 3, but in Environmental Health, September 2009, a Commentary noted:
In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The study has triggered debates as to the cause(s) of these increased cancers. This article reports on the findings of the KiKK study; discusses past and more recent epidemiological studies of leukemias near nuclear installations around the world and outlines a possible biological mechanism to explain the increased cancers. This suggests that the observed high rates of infant leukemias may be a teratogenic effect from incorporated radionuclides. Doses from environmental emissions from nuclear reactors to embryos and fetuses in pregnant women near nuclear power stations may be larger than suspected. Hematopoietic tissues appear to be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/fetuses than in newborn babies. 4
So, one of the most advanced nations in the world, Germany, decides to phase out nuclear power on health risk grounds after research finds higher rates of childhood leukemia near every one of their 17 nuclear power stations. The UK MSM ignore the report and the UK Labour Government of Gordon Brown, long wedded to nuclear power and weapons, funded by the GMB, commissions a report to debunk it, finding no causal link between the power plants and the disease?
The commentary in Environmental Health offers a possible mechanism to explain the clear and strong correlation for the under 5’s living 5km or less from the plants but, actually, we don’t even need that.
The onus is not upon us, to prove that the radiation around nuclear plants is safe but is upon the industry and our government to prove that it is not dangerous and to use genuinely independent researchers, not those working for government departments or in university research groups dependent on grants from government or the industry to show that it is not.
The much vaunted, by scientists, precautionary principle applies here. No potentially dangerous technology should be implemented until it is proven to be safe for all of us, from conception to the grave.
In the July 4th 2024 UK General Election, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives back new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/
3. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e0ccd40f0b62305b80788/HPA-RPD-066_for_website2.pdf
4. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-43
How Labour’s preferred smaller reactors actually produce more dangerous waste:
stewartb
Small modular reactors (SMRs i.e. nuclear reactors that produce <300 MW electricity) have been getting a lot of attention because of claims of inherent safety features and reduced cost [from GMB, Cons and Labour]. It is possible that it will be SMRs that the UK government pushes towards Scotland. Adversely critical or sceptical voices on SMRs don’t get much coverage by the media.
The peer reviewed academic paper on SMRs referenced below notes that ‘remarkably few studies have analyzed the management and disposal of their nuclear waste streams.’ Comparing three distinct SMR designs to a conventional 1,100-MW elec pressurized water reactor the authors conclude that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR DESIGNS WILL INCREASE THE VOLUME OF NUCLEAR WASTE IN NEED OF MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL BY FACTORS OF 2 TO 30. (my emphasis)
The authors argue that: ‘Although the costs and time line for SMR deployment are discussed in many reports, THE IMPACT THAT THESE FUEL CYCLES WILL HAVE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL IS GENERALLY NEGLECTED.’
And to this concern the authors from their analysis of the SMRs’ waster products add this: ‘SMRS WILL EXACERBATE THE CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL.’
The authors conclude: ‘we find that, compared with existing PWRs (pressurised water reactors), SMRs will increase the volume and complexity of LILW (low- and intermediate-level waste) and SNF (spent nuclear fuel i.e. high-level waste). This increase of volume and chemical complexity will be AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON WASTE STORAGE, PACKAGING, AND GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL. Also, SMRs offer no apparent benefit in the development of a safety case for a well-functioning geological repository.’
Source: Krall et al (2022) Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119 , No. 23 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 )
Now it’s only one paper, albeit by researchers from a top US university, Stanford in a top international journal, commented upon here by a non-expert in inorganic chemistry! But it’s focusing on a topic – the impact long term of waste from nuclear power plants – that seems so often to be downplayed by enthusiasts for building new nuclear power plants. So it’s worth keeping in mind.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is currently reporting c.80 different SMR designs under development world-wide, including several designs in operation as demonstrators. Given the immature state of the technology and the locations of its development beyond Scotland, it’s hard see any reason why Scotland would benefit from being an early adopter of SMRs – even before we take account of associated, longer term environmental and cost legacies.
Why is nuclear generation needed here anyway given Scotland’s yet to be fully exploited, huge potential for generating electricity from wind and tides; its pumped hydro potential, its CC&S potential which may enable environmentally acceptable use of oil and gas for industrial purposes for longer during the transition to net zero, and with scope for hydrogen generation/use, future access to improved battery technologies plus potential for enhancing efficiencies in energy use?
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Unreal Kingdom (UK), will END as soon as each nation and associated areas become entirely separate from each other!
LikeLike
My first degree was in Physics and I taught the history and theory of nuclear reactors. Two of my former students went on to work in the nuclear industry in decommissioning and did post graduate studies in Germany. They have worked in nuclear stations in Scotland on the disposal of waste.
While I have confidence in their integrity, they are working in an industry which, based on evidence from Sellafield (Windscale, formerly) and Dounreay, that has for decades had a pretty cavalier, careless and secretive attitude to waste management. However, given the history a lot of effort is about dealing with decades of neglect.
’Atoms for Peace’ was a propaganda smokescreen to divert attention from the main purpose – the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Scotland already produces more electricity than it needs from renewables and has the potential to produce far more. As the CEO of Octopus Energy has argued there is scope for local energy generation and usage which does not incur the grossly unfair pricing system imposed by the outdated National Grid.
We can manage without continuing oil and gas derived energy, but the oil fields and systems have to be closed down safely and the skilled staff retrained for working with renewables. This is what ‘just transition’ really means, or ought to mean.
If the GMB management were not so thuggish and if ‘Scottish’ Labour and, to a fair extent, the SNP, and Westminster were prepared, as Starmer’s initial meetings with the devolved governments and English Mayors, implied, to work constructively the a just transition could be effected, provided the workforce did not lose pay. This is what the now discarded £28billion per year was supposed to be financing.
We must resist new nuclear reactors in Scotland.
The recent film ‘Atomic People’ which gives the testimony of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, shows the reality of the impact of radiation on human beings and also shows how government stifled their testimony and portrayed them as outcasts who would taint other citizens.
Alasdair Macdonald.
LikeLiked by 4 people