There are some arguments for doing the right thing which
sound almost counter intuitive.
If one were to establish a Ron & Reggie Kray memorial institute
for the victims of knife crimes.
By promoting the ‘Greed is Good’ argument against nukiller
Yet this is not a counter intuitive argument in economic terms.
Given all the hidden costs of nukiller power,
plus all of the long term costs of storing and safeguarding the
then it is very hard to see how anyone could ever make a profit
without the tax payer shoulder the long term costs.
No wonder the companies involved in the industry are arguing
so strongly that we poor tax payers should pay for all the
unprofitable parts of the industry.
Just look at the insurance rates for each reactor.
At a time when there is going to be so much social harm as a
result of cuts in government spending,
is it really reasonable to keep subsidising the nukiller power
Last year George Soros pledged to put his money into helping to
stop global warming from carbon emissions.
Just keep in mind that the nukiller power industry also
generates a lot of carbon emissions,
Whether the Soros fund will also be used to help campaign against
the building of new nukiller reactors remains to be seen?
We still have to find out.
What we really need is more people like Soros coming out
against the building of nukiller reactors.
There is a lot of money at stake in terms of the nukiller power
but better returns are to be made by the alternatives.
One of the most scary aspects of the nukiller power industry
is that the people who run it still believe that they are going
and can give up clean safe energy.
Very little has changed in the argument as to why these
reactors should be closed down since I was doing
anti-nukiller power work in the 1970s.
The only difference is that these clowns our putting out the
line that a little radiation can solve climate change.
The fact that the mining and processing of uranium consumes
vast amounts of energy,
and is itself a major contributor to the build up of green
and thus climate change,
seems to be something that seems to of escaped them.
It’s not so much of out of sight,
and out of mind,
but out their neighbourhoods,
and out of their minds.
The bottom line is that investing in nukiller power is a very
poor return for ones money,
and a very expensive one in terms of long term environmental
This weekend people are being reminded that it is 30 years
since Margaret Thatcher swept in to power.
At the time I was involved in the occupation of the site which
became the Torness Nukiller reactor.
The ideas which Thatcher represented may of fallen out of
but the Dangers associated with Nukiller Power will take a
lot longer to be solved.
When I used to work in C & W May ( theatrical Costumiers ),
there was a guy who worked in the place who would explain
that the look of the costumes which people wear is not always
just a question of what is in fashion at the time.
As he put the point, it was never a question of:
‘Right lads! It’s 1930! All change in to these new costumes!’
Just look at come of the photos of Laurence Housman which
were taken during that decade, and you will see him wearing a
wing collar: Something that was very fashionable within an
As with clothing – The same with politics.
Some of us are still banging on about issues which were highly
fashionable to campaign upon a few decades back.
Though unlike clothing fashions – some political fashions do
not date in terms of what is are immediate problems which need
to be addressed.
I was reminded of all this the other day as I noted a job being
advertised for a new Director of Corporate Services at the
Civil Nuclear Police Authority.
i.e. The Nukiller Police.
Continue reading New Year – New Fashions
I wrote the following piece some while back, & but still think that it says a lot about Nukiller Power.
Continue reading An Untold History on Nukiller Power.