EHRC text describes ‘political interference’ by Corbyn’s office – but, as always, the devil is in the detail A section of the EHRC’s report being heavily spun and exploited by opponents of the movement that galvanised under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party is that on ‘political interference’. 934 more words‘Political interference’: what the EHRC report says that you won’t hear from the ‘MSM’ – and the blockbuster email it omits — SKWAWKBOX
For years, those of us, who have some knowledge of the UK’s geology, have argued, the UK is definitely not suitable for ‘fracking’.
Not just local community owned onshore wind, there is also local community small hydro projects, like http://stockport-hydro.co.uk/. Which need more Government support, instead of being impeded.
“worrying that properly released records can suddenly be removed from public access without notice or explanation.”
Review or ‘cover up’? Mystery as Australia nuclear weapons tests files withdrawn https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/11/australia/uk-australia-nuclear-archives-intl/index.html, By James Griffiths, CNN
More than 65 years since the UK began conducting secret nuclear weapons testing in the Australian Outback, scores of files about the program have been withdrawn from the country’s National Archives without explanation.
The unannounced move came as a shock to many researchers and historians who rely on the files and have been campaigning to unseal the small number which remain classified.
“Many relevant UK documents have remained secret since the time of the tests, well past the conventional 30 years that government documents are normally withheld,” said expert Elizabeth Tynan, author of “Atomic Thunder: The Maralinga Story”.
“To now withdraw…
View original post 874 more words
The fact, that NGO’s and some parliamentarians had to fight, to achieve so little, in the way of environmental protection. Is a clear indication, the UK is NOT leading on environmental issues or climate change.
Nuclear is not safe, this is a study of workers who are afforded some measure of protection, not the general public who are exposed to the continues leaks from nuclear facilities.
Update-clarification of the study below found here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/another-look-at-the-recent-low-dose-radiation-exposure-study-inworks/
Just in time to debunk the US NRC proposal for increasing radiation exposure to the general population from 0.25 mSv (EPA) to 100 mSv: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057 (Comment Deadline Nov. 19th) is a new study of nuclear workers exposed to cumulative doses with a median average (half-above, half-below) of 4.1 mSv, and an overall arithmetic average (mean) of 20.9 mSv: “Results suggest a linear increase in the rate of cancer with increasing radiation exposure. The average cumulative colon dose estimated among exposed workers was 20.9 mGy (median 4.1 mGy). The estimated rate of mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia increased with cumulative dose by 48% per Gy (90% confidence interval 20% to 79%), lagged by 10 years“. (See Richardson et. al. below). One Gy is 1000 mSv, in the context of this study, or 10 years worth of the US NRC 100…
View original post 728 more words