anti nuke bloc NATO SUMMIT 30Aug -5th Sept

anti nuke bloc NATO SUMMIT 30Aug -5th Sept


On the 4th and 5th of September, thousands of politicians and business men, including 60
world “leaders”responsible for countless deaths in wars of aggression, will descend on Newport , South Wales, for a summit of NATO, with a media circus and police operation to match….

A variety of groups are calling for action against the summit , which is taking place at the Celtic Manor Hotel.

NATO has more than 5000 nuclear weapons.
This figure includes Britain’s Trident system which alone could incinerate some 45 million people. The planned replacement program will cost the tax payer some £100 billion!

NATO’s conventional weapons increasingly use radioactive materials , manipulated in nuclear power stations… these weapons leave a toxic legacy which will affect the environment for generations and have already caused serious birth defects in Iraq, Former Yugoslavia , Afghanistan.

Join us on the

peace camp to be announced

Chris Busby: The Cause of Congenital Anomaly and Cancer in Iraq

Tagged , , , , , ,

Survey says…not what the nuclear industry would like.

SWAN Admin:

and when they don’t like the results of the survey – they just create their own!

Originally posted on GreenWorld:

Americans' thoughts on energy issues are not what the nuclear industry wants to hear. Gallup poll, April 2, 2014

Americans’ thoughts on energy issues are not what the nuclear industry wants to hear. Gallup poll, April 2, 2014

A couple of recent independent polls–from household names like Gallup and Harris–show clearly that nuclear power is at the bottom of the public’s preference for electricity generation; right down there with coal. At the top? Solar and wind power, of course.

The numbers are strong: the Harris poll, released March 20, 2014, finds that Americans believe solar (68%) and wind (57%) are the best energy sources for the environment. At the bottom was nuclear power, at 8%. Asked a different way, the public said coal was the worst source for the environment (53%) with nuclear coming in second-worst at 40%.

The Gallup poll,  released April 2, 2014, though asking different questions, came up with similar preferences. By a margin of 67-32%, Americans support spending more money on developing solar…

View original 1,246 more words



Fukushima Anniversary London 15th March

Is anyone planning to join the Japanese Against Nuclear March in London? We are just sorting out who and how a bit late we realise but we are going to take up the radioactive barrel costumes and join the London event, and are currently discussing transport. If you are planning to take part and want to join us let us know by this weekend 8th/9th and if we have lots of people we will book a coach. Details of the March:
Look forward to seeing you there,

Tagged , , , , , ,




Stop Hinkley and South West Against Nuclear
2 Public meetings (POSTER ATTACHED) Bristol and Bridgwater


19:00 – 21:00 Tues.25th February in Bridgwater Victoria Park Community Centre, Victoria Park Drive TA6 7AS
19:00 – 21:00 Wed. 26th February in Bristol Hamilton House, Stokes Croft, Bristol BS1 3QY

Dr Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment. Ian holds a degree in Radiation Biology from Barts in London and his doctoral studies concerned the radiological hazards of spent fuel, he has worked as a civil servant on regulating radiation risks from nuclear power stations and was the secretariat of the CERRIE committee on internal radiation emitters.
Nikki Clark of Stop Hinkley holds a degree in Environmental Studies, she is a spokesperson for Stop Hinkley and representsthe group at forums on nuclear issues. She will be talking about energy transitition and energy democratisation. Nikki is also a founding member of South West Against Nuclear.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

No more EDF Bulls**t!

For immediate release:

EDF “nuclear bullshit” protest

People protesting about public subsidies for a new Hinkley Point nuclear power station today dumped a pile of animal manure at an EDF shop in Bridgwater in Somerset. A banner was hung above the shop which read “No More Bullsxxt – EDF take our £££ and dump waste on us!”

The protest action, by South West Against Nuclear (SWAN), came on the day that David Cameron and Ed Davey announced a deal with EDF and Chinese Nuclear which would fix the price paid by UK consumers for new nuclear electricity – at double the current rate.

A man in a cow costume addressed shoppers as passers-by emptied shopping bags of manure onto a plastic sheet, blocking the entrance. A placard written in Chinese was stuck into the pile. Protestors cleaned the floor around the pile and then removed the manure pile for organic recycling.

Police later confiscated the manure and placed it in their van, saying that they believed it might be used to commit criminal damage.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nuclear compensation deal “a paltry bribe”


17 July 2013


A £128 million deal to “compensate” Somerset for hosting the proposed new Hinkley C power station is “a drop in the ocean” according to local campaigners.

Stop Hinkley spokesperson Theo Simon said, “This deal, which breaks down to only £3 million a year going to local councils for the next 40 years, is no compensation at all. If EDF get their way in the current price negotiations with the government, we will all be paying a massive extra nuclear tariff on our electricity bills over the same period, and our taxes will be underwriting the whole project by literally billions.

“No one can criticise our councillors for squeezing more money out of central government, but the amounts need to be put in the wider context. Somerset County council has seen budget cuts of £20 million this year under the Tories “austerity” programme and this is hitting the vulnerable and low paid across the whole of the county. 3 million is really not very much in the overall budget – the County’s capital investment programme alone is £38 million for 2013/2014.”

“The truth is, this is another example of the kind of paltry social bribes we are being offered to make the nuclear project more palatable. Even then, I see that much of the money will be spent on creating EDF’s future workforce through nuclear training programmes. At the end of the day, EDF will walk away with billions in profits and our descendants in Somerset will be left to pick up the bill for managing the toxic waste they leave behind. “

“There are now clear indications from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that West Somerset is being earmarked for a ‘second Sellafield’, and the government hope that so-called ‘compensation’ announcements like this will soften local resistance. But what possible compensation could there be for a nuclear accident which would destroy our rural economy, or a toxic waste legacy lasting for many thousands of years. No amount of money can compensate for a broken environment or broken lives – and £3 million a year doesn’t even come close.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,



On August 6th and 9th 1945, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The suffering and horror caused by these explosions should have brought an end to this terrible experiment. Instead, 68 years on, the earth is increasingly threatened by stockpiles of nuclear warheads, a renaissance of the civil/military nuclear programme, and the unbridled use of uranium as a component of US and UK weapon systems.
The UK Government is currently planning to replace its Trident warheads and submarine bases. This will cost the taxpayer around £100 billion, money many believe would be better spent on housing, health or education.

Join us at the ARC Bar on 6th August for an evening of talks, film clips and discussion on security in the nuclear age, with topics ranging from the impact of Trident on the economy and climate change to radioactive warfare in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.


27 Broad Street

Bristol BS1 2HG

Tagged , , , , ,

please support these amendments to the Energy Bill

The battle is far from over time to start collaring your MPs again,

You may have been disappointed to read recently that planning permission has been granted for EDF Energy to start construction work on the Hinkley C nuclear power station in Somerset.

But the battle is far from over.

Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, has tabled six amendments to the Energy Bill that is currently going through Parliament. The amendments aim to challenge the unfair support being given to new nuclear at the expense of renewables.

The amendments call for: greater transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of any contracts drawn up between government and nuclear companies; the removal of payments to nuclear companies through contracts for difference or the capacity mechanism; and the removal of any public underwriting of construction costs or other investment contracts.

Caroline has asked for our help in drumming up support for these amendments. We would therefore be very grateful if you could print off the letter below and send it to your local MP. (It’s basically asking your MP to support Caroline’s changes to the Energy Bill).

It would be even better if you added some comments of your own at the top of the letter: apparently MPs take more notice of letters that are personalized.

It would also be really useful for us to know which MPs have been sent the letter. So if you’re emailing your letter, could you please add our email address ( <> ) in the blind copy/Bcc subject line. If you’re sending the letter by post, could you send us a short email to let us know who you’ve sent it to.

Most important of all, we understand that the report stage of the Energy Bill will take place on the 3rd and 4th of June, so please send your letter as soon as possible.

If you are unsure who your MP is, you’ll be able to find the details here (if you are unable to open this link, go to <; ).
Many thanks for your continuing support of the Stop New Nuclear Alliance. We’ll be in touch again soon.


Dear [insert name of MP],

I am writing about the Energy Bill to ask you to support the six amendments on nuclear power. These amendments have been tabled by the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and are gaining cross party support.

I would like you to add your name to amendment numbers 23 to 28 before Report Stage of the Bill, which will take place on 3rd and 4th June, and to represent my views by speaking and voting in favour of these amendments in the House of Commons.

The Coalition Agreement made a very clear promise that new nuclear power stations would only be built if the industry got no public subsidy. I am disappointed that ministers are backtracking from this. Because of the huge cost increases for new reactors and the withdrawal of major companies from the consortium interested in building nuclear power, they are now introducing mechanisms to provide financial support through the Energy Bill.

I am very concerned about the high cost of nuclear power and the secrecy of the Government’s negations with EDF Energy. Estimates of the cost of electricity from new nuclear are around double the current electricity prices and the Government’s current proposals would lock us into these high prices for the lifetime of the power station, i.e. around 40 years.

You may have read that Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate change commissioner, said that, whilst some people believe nuclear is cheap, even offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear, see:; <; .

I believe that renewable energy sources, coupled with new storage technology, energy demand reduction, and wider European integration through cross-border electricity interconnectors can provide the necessary generation capacity. Germany is providing a strong example of a nuclear-free energy strategy that is safe and affordable.

Furthermore, Ed Davey, Secretary of State, has said that nuclear power must be “price competitive” and represent value for money for consumers if it is to be taken forward.

More recently, Michael Fallon, Energy Minister, said: “Any deal reached would have to be fair, affordable and value for money”. Caroline Flint has said that Labour is in favour of nuclear power but that the decarbonisation of our power supply must be done in the most cost-effective way. And that any strike price agreed must reflect a fair deal for bill payers.

There are three key amendments that I would like you to support – even if you are not opposed in principle to nuclear power:

Firstly, in order to achieve these aims, please will you support amendment 24. This already has cross party backing and would ensure that payments under a Contract for Difference for nuclear electricity are not greater than payments for any form of renewable generation. This would recognize that nuclear is a mature technology – as well as cross party consensus on the importance of protecting bill payers from unnecessarily high costs. This amendment would prevent nuclear power from getting a larger subsidy than less mature renewable energy technologies, in terms of price per megawatt hour and the length of the contracts that would be provided.

Secondly, I would like you to support amendments 26 and 27 on transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of any contract. These amendments increase the transparency and accountability around DECC’s negotiations with EDF Energy or other companies building new nuclear power, in respect of investment contracts (amendment 26) and contracts for difference (amendment 27). The amendments would require the Secretary of State to ask the National Audit Office and Parliament to examine whether the contracts represent value for money, in line with the backbench business motion debated on 7 February 2013, and the cross party group of MPs and academics who wrote to the NAO recently asking for this, see:; <;

Thirdly, amendment 28, which rules out payments to nuclear power through the capacity mechanism. There have been reports that DECC is looking at this option. New nuclear power already stands to gain huge subsidies through the contracts for difference and investment contracts in the Bill. Subsiding new nuclear power through the capacity mechanism would also contravene Ministers’ commitment not to give public subsidies for new nuclear power. This amendment also rules out the possibility that existing nuclear power could receive taxpayer handouts via the capacity mechanism. The capacity mechanism is supposed to be about ensuring supply meets demand at times of peak demand but nuclear is one of the least flexible electricity generation technologies available.

I am strongly opposed to new nuclear power for economic and environmental reasons and I have seen a lot of evidence that we do not need new nuclear to meet carbon emissions reductions. I am also concerned that Government support for new nuclear power will mean much less investment in renewables and energy efficiency. Therefore, as my MP, I would like to you support two further amendments on nuclear too:

Amendment 23: this would rule out payments to new nuclear power through the Contracts for Difference Mechanism in the Energy Bill.

Amendment 25: this would rule out any public underwriting of construction costs or other public support to nuclear through investment contracts. It is widely reported that EDF Energy is seeking underwriting / guarantees in addition to a strike price of around double the market price for electricity. Such incentives are not available to all renewables and therefore this is another unjustifiable subsidy to new nuclear power.

I would be grateful if you could write back to me to confirm whether you will represent my views on nuclear power by supporting some or all of these amendments.

If you are unwilling to support them, at the very least please could you write to Ed Davey [if MP is a Lib Dem] / Michael Fallon [if MP is a Tory]/ Caroline Flint [if MP is Labour] to convey my views on nuclear power.

Thank you in advance for your response and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,




Vision for change


This coming weekend Southwest against nuclear street stall will hit the bath peoples assembly vision for change event details are here. Come along and find out why nuclear power is not green not safe not necessary. And most definitely not economic.