Questions and Answers
Copyright (c) 2009 - All rights reserved
CANE members will try and answer all your questions on nuclear power and will post the answers here:
Nuclear will be too late to solve the climate change problem. Even on the government timescales it will take until 2018 for the first nuclear power to be sent to the grid, and that ignores the two to three years delay in the building of a similar facility in Finland.
Although climate change is a very serious problem, replacing a dangerous pollutant, carbon dioxide, with radioactive waste, is just not sustainable.
Q: Don't we need nuclear as part of the battle against climate change:
This would be true if the government were not providing incentives to the nuclear industry not available to other generating companies. The government covers liabilities in the case of a serious accident. It offers incentives to communities willing to house dangerous nuclear waste, possibly up to £6 billion of tax payer money. The nuclear levey means that the full cost of decommissioning will not be recovered until forty years after the power station comes on stream, effectively subsidising the capital costs of nuclear power. The government will also take over responsibility for nuclear waste just fifty years after it is handed over for disposal, in spite of it being dangerous for several thousand years. The next generations of tax payers will be picking up this bill. There is no level playing field in the provision of electricity.
Q: The government have said that no new nuclear power stations will be built unless the generator covers the full cost, including decommissioning and a fair share of waste disposal. Doesn't this mean that nuclear power will only go ahead if cost effective?:
CANE does not agree with scaremongering or raising anxiety without reason, but the dangers of low level radiation are uncertain. Studies have shown a link between the risks of childhood cancer and the distance you live from a nuclear power station (e.g. the KiKK study from Germany). Exposure to low levels of radiation is increasing, partly due to medical procedures and partly due to increases in background radiation. Western societies appear to be suffering from increases in cancer. Are these linked to nuclear power? There is no undisputable evidence that this is the case.
However, CANE beleieve that it is up to the government to answer the concerns of its citizens by undertaking research will solve this issue once and for all. Whilst there is de-facto evidence of a link between low level radiation and cancer, especially exposure as a result of nuclear power, the public have a right to express their concerns.
Q: The industry says that exposure to radiation at the levels produced by nuclear stations is safe. Are they right?:
This web site is maintained and managed by Pete Rowberry, CANE Publicity Officer. All suggestions about accuracy of content and feedback are welome. Please see the CANE contacts page for details.