Trump to ape Starmer in scrapping ‘red tape’ for new nuclear power and putting all our lives at risk

Professor John Robertson OBA

From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, yesterday, the above headline and:

In May, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders that, in part, require the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to consider dramatically weakening its radiation protection standard. If federal radiation limits are gutted in the manner urged by the president, the new standard could allow four out of five people exposed over a 70-year lifetime to develop a cancer they would not otherwise get.

Contesting the scientific consensus. Section 5(b) of the executive order—formally titled “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission”—directs the NRC to issue a proposed “wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents,” including reconsideration of the agency’s “reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure.” The LNT model maintains that risk from radiation exposure is proportional to the dose: Even a tiny amount of radiation causes some small but real increased risk of cancer, and that risk goes up linearly as the dose increases.

https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/president-trumps-radical-attack-on-radiation-safety/

Mostly, the above kind of thing would make you worry that Labour might ape this US error. Too late , they had similar plans last February!

From From PM Starmer via GOV.UK on 6 February 2025:

More nuclear power plants will be approved across England and Wales as the Prime Minister slashes red tape to get Britain building – as part of his Plan for Change.

Reforms to planning rules will clear a path for smaller, and easier to build nuclear reactors – known as Small Modular Reactors –to be built for the first time ever in the UK. This will create thousands of new highly skilled jobs while delivering clean, secure and more affordable energy for working people.

This is the latest refusal to accept the status quo, with the government ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs, to prioritise growth. It comes after recent changes to planning laws, the scrapping of the 3-strike rule for judicial reviews on infrastructure projects, and application of common-sense to environmental rules.

For too long the country has been mired by delay and obstruction, with a system too happy to label decisions as too difficult, or too long term. The UK was the first country in the world to develop a nuclear reactor, but the last time a nuclear power station was built was back in 1995. None have been built since, leaving the UK lagging behind in a global race to harness cleaner, more affordable energy.

The industry pioneered in Britain has been suffocated by regulations and this saw investment collapse, leaving only one nuclear power plant – Hinkley Point C – under construction. And this was after years of delay caused by unnecessary rules – meaning companies produced a 30,000-page environmental assessment to get planning permission.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-rips-up-rules-to-fire-up-nuclear-power

What are the risks? Just these:

Stanford research finds Labour’s preferred small modular reactors will produce even more highly radioactive nuclear waste
How Starmer, backed by Sarwar, want new mini nuclear power stations in Scotland that cause more cancer, more waste, depend on Russian fuel, cost more and now cannot be protected against terrorism
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
Radioactive tritium emissions which ‘slam into’ your DNA, DOUBLE around Clyde nuclear sub base
Recent research reported in the Lancet suggests that Labour’s plans to impose new nuclear plants in Scotland risks increased leukaemia spikes amongst workers and children living nearby
Latest – Scottish Labour policy challenged as new research reviewing more than 2 000 studies finds increased risk of thyroid cancer for those living near nuclear power plants
You can support Talking-up Scotland at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/checkout/help-talking-up-scotland-tell-truth-about-scotland/payment/nBQxjVzq/details or by direct bank transfer method - Bernadette/John Robertson, Sort code 08-91-04, Account 12266421

9 thoughts on “Trump to ape Starmer in scrapping ‘red tape’ for new nuclear power and putting all our lives at risk”

  1. I have always been opposed to nuclear power stations and continue to be. I have a degree in physics and I understand the mechanisms and the risks. I do not think we need them in Scotland. Already we produce by renewable sources more than enough energy for our current use (including data centres – BBC Scotland’s most recent scare story.) And we have the potential to generate much more.

    In recent months I have read two sources, whom I respect, say they think that nuclear energy is essential to enable ‘net zero’ carbon targets to be met to halt, and perhaps reverse climate change. Both are writing in a global context. There are places which are so dependent on fossil fuels that they are unable to decarbonise quickly enough without serious detriment to their economies.

    We (humanity) might be caught between a rock and a hard place, in that without nuclear, decarbonisation might not take place quickly enough to prevent climate change moving into a more severe phase.

    This does not mean that Scotland must have new nuclear power stations, but, some places might.

    However, the consequences for the health of people living close to those stations can be estimated. This means that such power stations will most likely be located predominantly in more sparsely populated areas and, probably, close to places where poorer people, including indigenous or subject peoples live.

    If, to prevent ‘doomsday’, such additional nuclear power stations are needed, then, we need to have an honest discussion about their locations so that less powerful groups in society are not disproportionately disadvantaged. If there is to be a station in Middlesbrough, for example, will there be one in Mayfair or Maidenhead?

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. They desperately need nuclear along the south coast of England, but nobody wants them – The problem there is they’ll run out of water without desal plants, and don’t have enough power let alone to run them – 50 years they’ve been kicking this can down the road…

      Like

      Reply

      1. I agree. They need a properly informed debate involving the wide range of the population. The discourse is usually a dialogue of the deaf with each side talking past each other.

        Romney Marsh in Kent points this up. In the south east corner there is the headland of Dungeness which has two nuclear power stations. Along the Marsh itself there are lines of wind turbines harvesting the energy of the abundant wind. A little bit east and north near Deal there used to be Betteshanger coalfield. (Now worked out and landscaped.) Kent, of course, is “the Garden of England” and still produces lots of food. And there are areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the North Downs and the white cliffs.

        But the big baleful issue is “Stop the Boats” with racism being stoked by Reform, the Tories and the media.

        The chaotic immigration system and the catastrophe of Brexit have put huge strains on local services and roads.

        Kent is a green and pleasant land with abundant food and energy and people, yet there is a persistent failure to talk and resolve how to come to an equitable and reasonable solution.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. The problem with ‘a properly informed debate involving the wide range of the population’ is there is no political advantage in counties or countries seeing eye to eye and understanding each other’s viewpoint, except in Wales, Scotland and NI – It’s the same sickness which has been consuming democracy for the last 50 odd years, ‘which country do you wish to own sir and how much, yes that will do nicely sir’ – But it will go bang eventually…
          That’s why ‘Stop the boats’ saves ‘Stop the Ripoffss’ or ‘Tax the millionaires more’ or ‘ What the hell did you mean by let the bodies pile high in the streets for all I care’ from taking off.
          The south of England is facing extinction, but the return for shareholders there has been huge, wha-wha-wha . Eh ?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. Nuclear, like other forms of energy generation IS affordable. However, it is paid for from public funds, but private companies extract profits. When the power station has reached the end of its life, the private companies back away, taking their profits and leave public funding to deal with decommissioning, and, probably, some of these same companies take profits from the work of decommissioning.

      So we can and do afford it, but do little to tax the profits of these rentier companies.

      The key issue is the more equitable distribution of the goods from such investment of public funds.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. I suspect that no matter our resistance I bet at least one of these new reactors will be suitably located at or near the Border so to avoid any unncessary planning problems in the more densely populated South.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. Nuclear is unaffordable. Last two nuclear plants built in Finland and France were years late and over budget. No government will guarantee the subsidies need to underwrite nuclear.

    Trident dumped in Scotland. Scotland pays too much for redundant weaponry.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Bob Lamont Cancel reply

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