Stop Moorside

NuGen: ‘The project will become the UK’s biggest new nuclear output from a single site – and Europe’s largest new nuclear construction plan.’


“The Moorside Project is a nationally significant infrastructure project and must be consented through the Planning Act 2008 via a ‘Development Consent Order’ (DCO). Before a DCO can be made, NuGen is required to consult with those living in the vicinity of the land to which its proposed application relates, key local authorities, persons with an interest in the land and prescribed statutory bodies, as well as publicising its proposed application nationally.”


Stage Two: Proposed Scheme Consultation: 14th May 2016 to 30th July 2016.

To whom it may concern,

Please acknowledge receipt of this – my objection to the proposed Moorside Nuclear Development.

I would appreciate your response to each of my carefully researched and referenced points.

Having thoroughly researched the issue, I strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:

The company who want to build the new plant have proven that they are inept in preventing a nuclear accident at Fukushima. Toshiba Daiichi have admitted that they ‘lost’ 600 tons of nuclear fuel in the failure of the plant to withstand the forces of nature.  Their attempts to block the contaminated area from reaching seawater have failed repeatedly and they admit to 300 tons of radioactive seawater entering the Pacific Ocean daily.  The company admits that the technology to ‘fix’ the problem has not been invented yet.  I do not trust that similar mistakes or new mistakes will not happen at the proposed Moorside nuclear development.

A new nuclear development anywhere is an accident waiting to happen. You cannot provide evidence to prove this is not the case.  I object to you pretending otherwise.

The area where you want to build is already hugely contaminated with radionuclides from the Sellafield/Windscale plant.  I object to the idea in principal that the local environment can be asked to accommodate yet more radiation from a new source of the most toxic synthetic substance known to mankind.

There is a known ten-fold rise in childhood leukemia in Cumbria, attributed by UK governmental radiation risk scientific advisory body – the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) to “population mixing” – zero evidence has proven this theory whereas the evidence shows that ingesting radioactive particles can and does cause leukemia and other cancers.  It is premeditated murder to inflict this radioactive death sentence upon the local population, the rest of the North West of England and the coast of Ireland.  To sanction this new nuclear development which will pump radioactive discharge into the Irish sea and into the air is to sanction murder.  My objection to this could not be stronger.

I also object to the method of quantifying what is considered by the UK, European and international regulatory authorities to be an ‘acceptable level’ of radiation contained in the planned emissions from the existing nuclear development at this location – and around all nuclear facilities.  The method uses figures of absorbed radiation derived from an external source. It uses this ‘external dose’ divided by the perceived number of local residents to calculate an ‘acceptable level’ per person.  This method is fundamentally flawed in several regards, namely:

  1. An ingested particle of radiation causes far more harm to human soft tissue than an absorbed external dose.  To compare the two as if they were the same is to compare heat felt by someone standing near a fire – to the damage caused if they were to ingest a of piece of coal.
  2. In actuality the risk from planned radioactive emissions is not shared evenly per person in a given area.  Someone could in fact ingest a radioactive particle (airborne or in the sea from the waste pipe) and the cell changes will cause cancer – potentially even decades later.  To simply divide the total amount of planned radiation emissions per head is not a fair method of assessing the individual risk to people living close beside a nuclear facility or downwind of it.  For many people, living nearby a nuclear facility is an early ticket to the grave – preceded by painful cancer.  This is a proven fact and is totally unacceptable.
  3. The very idea of using a model that states that there is an ‘acceptable’ number of people who WILL be harmed, but that this can be mathematically averaged out over a wider population who remain ‘unharmed’ to arrive at a so-called “acceptable level” of risk of harm to a given area/local population is morally WRONG.


In his scientific paper ‘Uranium Epidemiology’ published in 2015, Christopher Busby demonstrated with factual evidence that the risk to health from man-made Uranic sources derived from the nuclear industry are underplayed by the global atomic industry and world health organisations.  This data relates directly to the proposed Moorside development as local children are already suffering.  Here is but one relevant extract from this scientific paper:

PAGE 2: “Then there is a well-accepted but rare genetic-damage based cancer Retinoblastoma, which is diagnosed in children and for which the Rb gene mutation is known. The highest rates for this cancer are in the Navajo tribes who inhabit areas where there are Uranium mine tailings [30]. The other place where this condition has a high rate is in offspring of workers at the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK [31].”…/J_J_Epidemiol_Prevent…

The proposed Moorside development needs to take account of these findings and include them in an honest risk assessment to human health should the proposal go ahead.  I object to this project if these proven findings are not taken into account and the known risk published to the the people of Cumbria who are currently falsely told that ‘nuclear plants do not pose a risk to human health’.

Here is a British newspaper reporting, in June 2016, results from three more scientific studies concluded that people living downwind of a nuclear facility in Wales have FIVE TIMES the chance of developing cancer over and above what you would expect in that population.…/Nuclear-power-station… .

There is scientific certainty that the increased cancer rates were directly attributable to the proximity of the nuclear plant and it’s PLANNED radioactive emissions.  The official publicity for the proposed Moorside Development that has informed the previous consultations that have paved the way to it being given the go-ahead CANNOT have taken this evidence into account.

To continue to press ahead with this current consultation for three new nuclear reactors in West Cumbria without first publicizing this evidence of INCREASED CANCER NUMBERS in communities living in the shadow of nuclear plants is to LIE to the general public about the unavoidable risk to their own health and that of their loved ones.

I object in principal to the continuation of the proposed Moorside new nuclear plant as this information is not widely understood yet by the UK population – especially those conditioned to accept nuclear developments in a given area due to the jobs that it will create.

Yours sincerely,

Eleanor Bull

30th July 2016


One thought on “Stop Moorside

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s