Who is funding the Herald to back new nuclear that risks the lives of women and children, will contaminate our land for centuries and cost far more than renewables?

Professor John Robertson OBA

It’s not even close, the debate over whether Scotland needs new nuclear power stations.

The research is in. Numerous independent studies, across the globe, prove their unsuitability. They produce waste that causes local spikes in, for example, breast cancer and childhood leukaemia. It takes centuries to make the sites safe. They cost far more to build, to run and to de-commission than the renewables which already produce more power than Scotland needs. They are a terrorism risk, especially the numerous small modular reactors that would be needed spread across the country.

Yet, the Herald keeps coming back with deceitful headlines and utterly unbalanced reports to back only those who have a vested interest in this – the nuclear industries and the GMB union. The Herald is owned by a corporation and we see, once more, reports in the interests of corporation. You cannot trust it.

I’ve published many evidence-based reports here to debunk the Labour strategy. Here are just a few:

The Final Word on Labour’s Flawed and Dangerous Nuclear Energy Plans
The weight of evidence from the US, Europe and Australia now overwhelms the dishonest research into nuclear energy and cancer risks carried out by UK ‘academics’ on behalf of UK Government bodies
Massive recent research study finds significantly higher risks for ALL cancers, especially among the under-5s, in those living less than 20 miles from nuclear power stations to show Scottish Labour’s support for them as a betrayal
Lesson for opponents of nuclear power in Scotland as researchers revisit study of Essex nuclear power station and breast cancer incidence among mature women nearby to find an even greater risk, only a short distance from new Sizewell C, and ‘establishment bias and cover-up’

7 thoughts on “Who is funding the Herald to back new nuclear that risks the lives of women and children, will contaminate our land for centuries and cost far more than renewables?”

  1. It doesn’t matter whether it’s nuclear power, ferries, the S.N.H.S, or indeed any other topic, as long as the almost wholly corrupt “Scottish” media can use the lies it spouts as a means to bash the Scottish Government. Does anyone believe that the same brainwashing would be taking place if there was a Con/Lab/LibDem or Reform administration in power at Holyrood? Of course not. There is only one principle behind this propaganda, and that is to convince enough of our electorate that we cannot be seen to be competent to govern ourselves, and be reliant on Westminster. Of course it’s nonsense, but the English Government got so great a scare in 2014 when they so nearly lost all of Scotland’s riches, that they are absolutely determined we will never again be allowed the opportunity to decide our future. The one question is the same as always. Will we ever have the courage to challenge our oppressors? Well, will we?

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  3. Sizewell C 2022 consent cost was £20bn . The potential cost estimates are already up 44% . The public could be exposed to a cost of £54 bn associated to Sizewell C . Is the Herald going to tell the gullible readers this . Will the Herlad be brave enough to tell its gullible readers the rocketing costs of Hinkley Point from its initial cost of £18bn with recent reviews showing a cost of £25bn . Will the Herald print the facts or just dodge the questions.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  4. Thanks John. The BritNat EngGov really want Scotland to accept these lethal new nuclear reactors when there’s an abundance of renewable energy in Scotland. It’s because it’s not going to impact England and folks there would not allow it and, of course they have very little available land, especially public land.
    The Herald is doing the EngGovs’ dirty work in promoting it as costing ‘millions’ if we dont’ accept it. Oh aye, well, it’s worth a few ‘million’ to say NO THANKS, given the costs to build it and the costs to the environment and health of the nation. Isn’t the English governments’ Dounreay in the north of Scotalnd no longer functional so been left to rust and Torness leaks a potentially catastrophic accident waiting to happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. To be fair, none of these ‘new’ reactors have been built in the UK, so we don’t as yet know about lethality, but given HMG’s less than illustrious history over nuclear, it would appear to be a fairly safe bet…

      The 5 year record for construction of a SMR is likely to held by China for many years to come by next year, by then claims of ‘energy security’ will be lost in the fog of the latest energy crisis when Russia as monopoly supplier of the the necessary fuel puts an export embargo on it…

      You really couldn’t make it up…

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Alex Beveridge Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.