Do not stand at my grave and weep…. (Ode for #Thatcher , an alternative version)

Quote

Posted on April 9, 2013 by Pam Field @earwiggle

The Nuclear Truth – it’s time we faced up to it.

Quote

Posted on February 23, 2013 by Pam Field @earwiggle

Facing up to the world’s energy crisis is a major challenge facing us in the 21st Century. Educating a global population to look towards alternatives to fossil fuels is a priority.

But continued use and expansion of nuclear power is not an alternative. Chernobyl, Fukushima, and now Washington – provide warnings of the danger of using nuclear fission to derive energy, and the further risks from long term storage of nuclear waste. The argument often offered is that nuclear energy is more cost effective than sustainable energy (such as solar, wind, tide, geothermal or wave energy) . Yet support for nuclear energy on financial grounds is flawed. EU calculations for financing nuclear expansion for mining of Uranium in the Ukraine ignores the cost of disposal of the toxic waste . Following Fukushima, the The World Bank estimated the cost of the nuclear crisis at $235bn (£144bn) making it one of the world’s most expensive disasters. The truth is that nuclear power in not cost effective when the cost of extraction of uranium and the cost of storage of highly dangerous waste.

This waste will remain dangerous for millions of years, and we add to it every day.

So exactly how long does nuclear waste remain?

From Greenpeace website:
“Plutonium 239 has a half-life of approximately 24,000 years. That means that after 24,000 years half of the radioactivity contained in the plutonium will have decayed. However, the hazardous life of radioactive waste is at least ten times the half-life, therefore these wastes will have to be isolated from the environment for 240,000.”

The current statement by the US government is that nuclear waste should be considered dangerous for 1,000,000 years, but I have not seen a reason for this number. A better number, because the standard can be easily understood, comes from the European Union. This is that nuclear waste should be considered dangerous until it is no more radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore, which is 6,000,000 years.

It has been recently reported (BBC) that nuclear waste is leaking from tanks in Washington.

Six underground storage tanks at a nuclear site in the US state of Washington are leaking at a rate of up 300 gallons (1,136 litres) per year.

Nearly 200 ageing containers hold millions of litres of radioactive waste left from decades of plutonium production for nuclear weapons.

Established as part of the Manhattan Project in 1943, Hanford was home to the world’s first full-scale plutonium production facility.

It was part of America’s bid to build the world’s first nuclear weapon during World War II.

The site produced the plutonium for the bomb that was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Production at Hanford continued until 1989.

Clearing up this waste will be costly. The issue with nuclear waste is that serves no peaceful purpose, yet remains dangerous for many centuries and continues to emit radiation. No matter how we are reassured of the safety of Nuclear Power, accidents happen, and accidents are more likely happen when costs are cut, where profit is the motive.

If nuclear waste were to fall into the wrong hands, it could be used to make a dirty bomb, which could spread radiation over an inhabited area.

To add to risk for continued use of nuclear power is madness and total unnecessary. The truth is that our energy requirements can be met by wind, solar, wave, HEP, geothermal and tidal. While Germany is rejects nuclear power , the UK lags behind.

The UK is on a similar latitude and has additional resources Germany does not have. There is an enormous source of tidal power at the mouth of the River Severn, and miles of coasts surrounding our islands which could harness wave power.

Without doubt, we must halt the damage to the world’s climate by the use of carbon-emitting fuels. But to look from one disaster to another is ludicrous, and unnecessary. That we should risk accidents, from geological disaster or terrorism, a dependence on nuclear energy for the future is madness. The risk to life is so huge it should not be contemplated.

Academisation, ME/CFS and the Neglect of Sick Children

Posted on November 25, 2012 by Pam Field @earwiggle

Privatisation Plans -Divide and Rule

Premeditated plans for privatization is why we have witnessed academisation of our schools and break-up of the NHS. As with basic utilities, pursuing privatization for education and health is morally wrong on two basic points:

It is immoral to profit from others basic needs; individuals have no choice, and those with financial means can exert undemocratic control.

Privatisation perpetuates privilege. Buying your way to a hospital bed or smaller class sizes unfairly deprives others.

The British habit of queuing is based on an innate sense of fairness. People will not tolerate an impatient bully pushing to the front of the bus queue, and will give up their seat to someone in need. They see people as individuals when meeting face-to-face. But the private wards and private schools separate people, so those seeking such privilege close doors to other people and indirectly cause suffering and even death.

Academisation

Inter-school competition was encouraged by the introduction of league tables, which focussed on publicised external exam results. Co-operation and mutual support between schools continued within local authorities, and they benefitted from centralised services, such as Education Psychology, Education Welfare Officers, Connexions Advisors, Youth Workers and EOTAS Services (which provided education for children who were unable to go to school, for example because of injury, chronic illness, anxiety and depression). Further close co-operation between CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, NHS) and Education services can be effective, but separate NHS and Education budgets can be problematic.

Financial sweeteners were offered (1) to encourage the Academisation process, such that the cost of the process exceeded original estimates by £1Billion. (2),(3). Schools resisting the process have been forced to convert. Schools have reported unreasonable, disappointing and unexpected OFSTED results. Presenting organisations as failing is part of the plan to justify change. Yet the change has been made without evidence (4) that Academisation improves achievement.

Education for Sick Children – and the effect of Academisation

Every child has a right to an education. Sadly, during prolonged illness, sometimes children are unable to go to school. Geographically, there is considerable variation regarding provision of education for children unable to go to school. Some LEAs offer little provision, some employ contracted, trained specialists to provide an outreach service and specialist centres. Academy Schools have no responsibility to provide services for sick children, or even to offer school places to them. Furthermore, cuts to Local Authorities has resulted in the depletion of centralised services offered to children and young people. Guided by league tables, Academies have no incentive to offer any provision, since numbers are comparatively low. Offering a classroom on site with a tutor or support worker is woefully inadequate and pointless if a child is unable to get out of bed or even to sit up. Furthermore, lack of training to mainstream staff in delivering an education to children with EBSR (5) ( Emotionally Based School Refusal) or ME/CFS (6), often compounds problems these children face. Many mainstream schools are inflexible, unwilling to change a timetable, reduce the demands of a curriculum or even to enter for exams if they expect an adverse effect on league tables. To be denied exam entry because of missed lessons during a kidney transplant is scandalous. Yet schools are pressured to maintain statistics.

About 1% of children : NHS, (7) are unable to attend school because of chronic fatigue known as (ME/CFS), NHS, (8) which can follow a viral disease. Life prospects for these young people depends on a number of factors. We must consider:

What Educational provision is offered while a child is confined at home?

Does training to mainstream teachers and support staff include needs for sick children as well as those with special needs?

Are multi-professional teams working together towards a common aim?

Is contact with friends maintained and class members informed?

Who is listening to the young person?

Problems for young people suffering from chronic fatigue can be compounded by depression and emotional fragility. However, this is caused by the inadequacies of the educational system itself and is avoidable. A recently published study (9 and 10) by Dr Esther Crawley shows how lack of awareness by teachers, and other children can reduce the prognosis, and life prospects for children suffering from ME/CFS. It concludes that depression is not a consequence of the illness itself, as had been previously believed to be the case by some professionals within health and education. There are many teachers, and indeed even some doctors who unaware of the nature of the illness and who refuse to believe the suffering is genuine. They therefore attribute the lack of attendance to truancy. In addition, lack of understanding of the illness by peers frequently leads to bullying.

Young people with chronic fatigue syndrome or myalagic encephalopathy (CFS/ME) experience higher levels of psychological distress than healthy controls and young people with other chronic illnesses, and it was recently demonstrated that 38% of this population scored above the clinical cut-off on the Spence Child Anxiety Scale. Subscales of social and separation anxiety were consistently high across gender and age groups. In this study, we used qualitative methods to help us understand more about these two types of anxiety in young people with CFS/ME. Eleven young people (age 12–18) were interviewed. Interviews were self-directed by the participants and were wide ranging. The transcripts were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Five superordinate themes were identified: social loss and adjustment; introduction of uncertainty and unpredictability; the vulnerable self; individual differences; and contributions towards recovery. Many themes were identical to those described in young people coping with other chronic illnesses in adolescence. In addition, young people with CFS/ME describe experiences associated with the perceived illegitimacy of this condition, namely: feeling unable to explain their illness; bullying from peers; disbelief; and distrust from adults around them. This becomes an additional challenge for these young people. Clinicians need to be aware of these problems, and offer appropriate support. Study by Dr Esther Crawley (10)

The exclusion of children from society will be exacerbated by the increasing isolation of schools from each other and centralised services. For many, exclusion will continue into adulthood. The human and financial cost is considerable. Labour’s Andy Burnham has stressed the need for Health and Education Services to work together (11) and that is very welcome. However, this is pointless if individual health trusts and various schools in a locality are managing affairs in isolation, and driven by their own objectives of climbing league tables, or, disturbingly which is very clearly on the horizon of financial profit (12).

Renationalising our NHS must be at the forefront of Labour’s manifesto, and reuniting schools in consortia (13) along with properly funded centralised health, welfare, and support services for those with special educational or health needs. Children, not profit, is what our schools should be about. Labour’s policy of “Every Child Matters”(14) seems like ancient history. Labour should plan an NES, a National Education System, providing excellent education for all, an opportunity missed in 1945.

See: Academisation and the Demolition of our Education System

While future Osbornes and Camerons and their chums are allowed their privileged lifestyles, chances for our grandchildren will be diminished. It just won’t do.

References and Further Reading:

Nuclear Power No Answer to Climate Change: Hinkley Point – Dawn Blockade

Posted on November 23, 2012 by Pam Field @earwiggle

NUCLEAR POWER IS NO ANSWER TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Dawn blockade leaves nuclear workers locked out

At 6 am. this morning 10 protestors blockaded access to EDF energy’s nuclear sites at Hinkley Point, preventing the morning shift from starting work. Four people in arm-locks formed a barrier across the main access road at Wick Moor Drove in a bid to prevent further ground clearance work at the planned Hinkley C site and to protest at EDF’s plan to extend the life of ageing reactors at the Hinkley B station.

Sitting beneath a banner saying “Nuclear Power – not worth the risk”, Bristol tree-surgeon Zoe Smith said, “We want the destruction of land at the proposed Hinkley C site to stop. EDF still don’t have planning permission for the new nuclear plant, the governments energy policy is in tatters. With Centrica pulling out and the long awaited Electricity Reform Act delayed, there is not even enough investment to finish the project. If the Tories fix the electricity price for nuclear so that the project can go ahead it will leave a radioactive waste dump here for hundreds of years.” The early morning blockade caused long tailbacks for scores of workers contracted in to perform maintenance work on the the existing reactors at Hinkley B, EDF have signalled their intention to re-licence the reactor again in 2016.

Bridgwater mum Nikki Clark from South West Against Nuclear said, “Not only do we not need new nuclear, we certainly don’t need to extend the life of the existing reactors even further. Just this year alone reactor no 4 in the B station has scrammed at least three times. EDF like to call these emergency shutdowns ‘unplanned outages’ , but this deliberately conceals the fact that these ageing

reactors are now in a dangerous condition. In 2008 the regulators threatened British Energy with closure of the site. The reactors do not have any fewer cracks in the graphite core now than they did then. Do we have to have our own Fukushima here in Somerset before we abandon this insanity and embrace a renewables revolution in the UK?”

Stop Hinkley spokesperson Theo Simon said, “We support this protest. New nuclear is dead in the water. We need public investment in a renewables revolution which could create a million climate jobs and cut energy bills through a programme of home insulation and energy-efficiency. With its massive marine energy resource, West Somerset is perfectly placed to lead the way in renewables, but EDF’s plans would turn it into a toxic waste dump for our grandchildren.”

http://southwestagainstnuclear.wordpress.com/ 1)

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/711990 2)

Campaigns such as this are necessary to alert the public, where mainstream media fails us. Dirty Fossil Fuels and wasteful use of energy is churning out carbon dioxide at levels which is catastrophic for the planet. The scientific evidence is clear. To deny it is foolish, and those responsible for funding the argument against fossil fuels are the most foolish of all. The corporate power is nothing – against the power of nature which they seek to deny. Labour Leader Ed Miliband knows this, and it will be at the forefront of Labour’s manifesto. The Liberal Party have sold out any pretence for green issues, and I am at a loss to understand why the Green Party in my constituency stood down at the General Election in favour of the LibDems who support this government. The Coalition government’s policies are short-sighted and foolish. Like ostriches, they seek to deny the truth, and like headless chickens, they panic but will not address the issue. I believe the Labour Party are committed to addressing Climate Change.

3) Labour’s leader, Ed Miliband, said:

“David Cameron promised that this government would be the greenest government ever. But this government is not up to the task. We now have a Minister for Energy who is against building new wind turbines – and a government that has delayed crucial decisions on the Green Investment Bank and de-carbonisation targets.

“George Osborne is trying to undermine the Climate Change Act, leading the dash for gas, and pandering to the climate sceptics on the back benches. We even had the spectacle of the campaign manager for one of their by-elections conspiring with the anti-wind farm candidate, and undermining their own candidate.

“Already billions of pounds in investment is going elsewhere or being put on hold. Thanks to this government, the investors who want to invest in our green sector are shutting their wallets or going elsewhere. Since this government came to power, investment in renewable energy hasn’t gone up, it hasn’t even stagnated – it has halved.
When we were in government, we passed the Climate Change Act which gave those investors the certainty they needed to invest. We take climate change seriously. We all have a responsibility to act now rather than expect our children to suffer the consequences. Only this week the World Bank talked of catastrophic flooding, droughts, and millions of deaths if climate change is not addressed.

“Other countries around the world are watching to see whether Britain signs up to the 2030 decarbonisation target. We are not getting leadership from this government in Westminster. All we get is dither and delay.

To the current government, if it is not too late to avert global catastrophe, we must insist on alternatives for energy sources than deriving energy from carbon producing fossil fuels – coal, oil, and gas.
Yet the government’s policy:

Encourages a dash for use of gas as a fuel source, (4)

Supports more gas trapped in shale by fracking, with disastrous geological consequences (5) which could cause earthquakes.

Suggests CCS (6) as a clean-coal option (when in reality it will release further methane into the atmosphere, and is not feasible anyway)

Plans to build new nuclear power stations despite the dangers of from contamination by waste, of the dangers of nuclear weapon development, and environmental damaged as evidence by Chernobyl (7) and Fukushima. Ironically, they are encouraging support from the Japanese firm Hitachi. (8)

Is influenced by lobbyists 9) who profit financially from energy corporations.

Proposes to delay Carbon reduction targets until 2016. (10)

The recent Hurricane Sandy, and floods in the UK (11) in Autumn 2012, may be wake up calls for some. In Devon a canal constructed 200 years ago, broke its banks and may be lost forever – indicators that climate change is a reality. ( some scientific evidence here (12).

The solution is to limit energy use, and to invest in renewable energy, which will provide jobs for many and once installed has minimal maintenance costs compare with nuclear and fossil fuels. Energy requirements can be met by wind, solar, wave, HEP, geothermal and tidal. Germany is rejecting nuclear power (15) , yet the UK lags behind. While on a similar latitude to Germany, the Uk has additional resources Germany does not have. There is an enormous source of tidal power at the mouth of the River Severn, and coasts surrounds our islands which could harness wave power. We need to act, and act now, not procrastinate for future governments and our grandchildren, in order to for some to profit today.

We reject nuclear power as an alternative. A major problem is the disposal of dangerous nuclear waste which remains radioactive for centuries. It is not acceptable that we leave our dirty waste for those yet unborn, potentially exposing future generations to the horrific effects of dangerous radioactive waste.

The issue with nuclear waste is that serves no peaceful purpose, yet remains dangerous for many centuries and continues to emit radiation. No matter how we are reassured of the safety of Nuclear Power, accidents happen, and accidents are more likely happen when costs are cut, where profit is the motive.

Support for nuclear energy on financial grounds is flawed. EU calculations for financing nuclear expansion for mining of Uranium in the Ukraine ignores the cost of disposal of the toxic waste 20). Following Fukushima, the The World Bank estimated the cost of the nuclear crisis at $235bn (£144bn) (17, 18, 19)– making it one of the world’s most expensive disasters.

There is also the risk of further accidents occurring in nuclear power stations whether caused by human error as in Chernobyl, or by natural disasters, as in Fukushima as seen in Japan, which resulted from an earthquake.

Nuclear waste can continue to emit radiation for centuries, and it could potentially become unstable, if handled and stored improperly, setting off a chain reaction which could create a nuclear accident. If it fell into the wrong hands, it could be used to make a dirty bomb, which could spread radiation over an inhabited area. Nuclear waste storage focuses on finding safe and secure ways to store spent nuclear fuel and other forms of nuclear waste, until they have stabilized enough to pose no threat to humans, wildlife, and the environment.

Think Left

The purpose of Think Left is to present a view of politics from a left-wing perspective.

Category Archives: Science and Research

Do not stand at my grave and weep…. (Ode for #Thatcher , an alternative version)

Quote

The Nuclear Truth – it’s time we faced up to it.

Quote

Academisation, ME/CFS and the Neglect of Sick Children

Privatisation Plans -Divide and Rule

Academisation

Education for Sick Children – and the effect of Academisation

References and Further Reading:

Nuclear Power No Answer to Climate Change: Hinkley Point – Dawn Blockade

Encourages a dash for use of gas as a fuel source, (4)

Supports more gas trapped in shale by fracking, with disastrous geological consequences (5) which could cause earthquakes.

Suggests CCS (6) as a clean-coal option (when in reality it will release further methane into the atmosphere, and is not feasible anyway)

Plans to build new nuclear power stations despite the dangers of from contamination by waste, of the dangers of nuclear weapon development, and environmental damaged as evidence by Chernobyl (7) and Fukushima. Ironically, they are encouraging support from the Japanese firm Hitachi. (8)

Is influenced by lobbyists 9) who profit financially from energy corporations.

Proposes to delay Carbon reduction targets until 2016. (10)

Follow “Think Left”

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

this:

Like this:

this:

Like this:

Privatisation Plans -Divide and Rule

Academisation

Education for Sick Children – and the effect of Academisation

References and Further Reading:

this:

Like this:

Encourages a dash for use of gas as a fuel source, (4)

Supports more gas trapped in shale by fracking, with disastrous geological consequences (5) which could cause earthquakes.

Suggests CCS (6) as a clean-coal option (when in reality it will release further methane into the atmosphere, and is not feasible anyway)

Plans to build new nuclear power stations despite the dangers of from contamination by waste, of the dangers of nuclear weapon development, and environmental damaged as evidence by Chernobyl (7) and Fukushima. Ironically, they are encouraging support from the Japanese firm Hitachi. (8)

Is influenced by lobbyists 9) who profit financially from energy corporations.

Proposes to delay Carbon reduction targets until 2016. (10)

this:

Like this:

Follow “Think Left”