Damaged Blair nuclear nonsense
Blair, yet again, against what may turn out to be a phoney backdrop of manipulated fossil fuel prices, and political global warming mania wants to reignite a shelved nuclear industry.
Amid protests from Greenpeace, Blair said, shockingly "nuclear power was a difficult issue but should be settled by open debate, not protests to stop free speech" (?!?!?!)
Everyone and their dog knows it has already been 'settled' as far as the regime sees it:
"IN A clear sign that the UK is gearing up to build more nuclear power stations, a £6.1 million research programme has been launched to investigate reactor design" (12/11/2005) New Scientist
A forthcoming new energy report is announced, only 2 years since an enormous energy review was already conducted as it didn't come up with the desired political answers, so it's time to create a new one that does. Obviously this will undo the last report to set out the case and cost wonders for nuclear and have every moron out there, including many MPs, chasing around after yet another false inquiry, the conclusion to which has already been written.
One leading protagonist of the nuclear case within the New Labour camp is not surprisingly, another political minion, Blair's head 'scientist' Sir David King 1, who enlightened the world in January 2004 by saying:
"Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism" BBC and in July 2004 followed it with "London could be among the first cities to go if global warming causes the planet's ice to melt" BBC
Clearly this guy has quite a track record as useful idiot, where he can be added to the list of those already sufficiently warped to be utilized by the regime. King was talking up winter energy anxieties even before the summer, 'coincidentally' just three weeks after Blair created plans to revive the nuclear industry, where King thereafter started dropping hints about 'just one more generation of plants'. Some scientist.
More recently, the winter fuel propaganda was picked up again by a nuclear-hungry CBI to start a new fear mongering campaign about shortages, despite the fact that nuclear won't make an overall energy difference for 15+ years according to leading environmentalists, and won't make any difference at all to gas consumption. Digby Jones' operation to spread panic was subject to a 'withering attack' by British Gas who described it as 'irresponsible scaremongering'.
Meanwhile other environmentalists have recognized that King, despite his 'concern' about global warming is a regime puppet, that, shock and horror, had his 'arm twisted over the political decision on nuclear' too,
"A memo sent by Blair's private secretary, Ivan Rogers, a month after King's article was published in Science, instructed him to stop criticising the Bush administration on the grounds that it "does not help us achieve our wider policy aims". Mock interviews King conducted with his political minders, which were found by a journalist on a disk dropped by his press secretary, show him learning to recite the government's line."
Are we seeing a pattern here ? Ian Blair, the security services, David King. There's apparently no shortage of regime lackies out there wanting a slice of the depraved Blair pie.
Now interestingly enough, both the science and politics of this latest scheme may well be out-of-whack according to the Sunday Times who report:
"Given that a typical nuclear power station would produce about 2% of the nation’s electricity, Britain would need to build a new plant every year just to keep pace with demand. Even if we built at twice that rate, the savings in greenhouse gases would be small when compared with the surging emissions from industry and transport, especially aviation"
And then, to the horror of global warming theory advocates, Nirex say current reactors and waste sites themselves risk eventually flooding anyway if rising sea levels manifest:
"When a nuclear power station is submerged by sea-water, the contamination is literally unfathomable. It would make Chernobyl look like a central heating problem. No-one knows when, exactly, the seas might rise and engulf these plants...Yet the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is expected to recommend soon the long-term storage of future nuclear waste at the existing Sellafield site in Cumbria. " Herald
And what does that mean ? Inland sites for new reactors near major populations as the Herald article points out, although they also feel that just ain't gonna happen as no city in their right mind wants that on top of them.
Somehow nuclear power hardly seems an answer to the proposition of man-made climate change that is now being wielded as a stick to force it onto the table.
Also Gordon Brown has said he won't pay for these new reactors, and that means, as Tom Burke writes in the Guardian,
"The government is planning to use stealth support. This will take many forms. First, the electricity market will be rigged for the next 30 years to guarantee a return for nuclear investors."
Add to that, it has been noted that the UK itself doesn't even have the inhouse technology or staff to make and run the reactors itself.
So what do we have, apart from yet another bad New Labour political decision, out of control and all over the place, duplicitiously propped up by business cronies, puppet scientists of the regime and sexed-up false inquiries and evidence ? Nothing.
Backtracking a little to the 22nd November and Blair's Commons committee meeting, he said "controversial and difficult" decisions will have to be taken over the need for nuclear power to tackle the UK energy crisis"
Ironically though, the 'difficult decision' will not affect Blair, or the widely-despised sick little nutpots like John Birt who he surrounds himself with, who won't be living next to a nuclear reactor or dump, the waste of which was, in 2002, described to be 'on the verge of exploding':
"Almost 90 per cent of Britain's hazardous nuclear waste stockpile is so badly stored it could explode or leak with devastating results at any time. An alarming government report into Britain's beleaguered nuclear industry - obtained by The Observer - reveals that medium-level radioactive waste with the equivalent mass to 725 double-decker buses is being stored in a dangerous state.
The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee found that 88 per cent of Britain's intermediate-level nuclear waste had not been treated for safe storage at up to 24 UK locations. Experts last night warned the potentially volatile waste represented a toxic time-bomb and warned of a 'disaster waiting to happen'" Observer
The plants themselves have cost £56 billion to clean up according to Charles Kennedy (other sources say £60bn), while ex-Environment Minister and prominent 9/11-official-story skeptic Michael Meacher said they were not necessary and said the nuclear option had almost been ruled out in the government review in 2003 BBC, the one they now wish to hastily rewrite to come up with a different conclusion.
Inevitably, one thing that set the stage recently for any 'debates' about energy (which, again, means it has already been decided) was the public panic about gas, which even the Times described as "contrived", and now an investigation is taking place into that,
"An urgent inquiry has been ordered into the gas supply crisis. It will focus on claims that major suppliers are rigging the market to inflate prices and boost their profits. Wholesale prices have soared in recent weeks, driven by panic over possible shortages and forecasts of a cold winter. It says it wants to make sure that recent price movements "reflect changing supply and demand factors and are not the result of market abuse or distortion"." Daily Mail
Ever the conduit of malpractice and always the eternal perverter, Blair is now seeking to give the neglected nuclear industry a shot in the arm and rewire the entire energy market in doing so, where, just like the 90 days detention, and using politicized cronies, he has shamelessly wrapped it up in the greenhouse gas concern and fed it back to the public saying 'look you know, I'm saving the planet, why are you trying to stop me ?'
In exchanging the lesser (not zero) CO2 cost of nuclear (never mind the enormous cost of building new plants), Blair presumbably wants you to accept his regime's already-made 'difficult
"Sellafield holds 98% of the country's most deadly nuclear waste and more than 50% of intermediate level waste - enough to fill more than 1,000 double decker buses. Drigg, some 6km south of Sellafield, contains tonnes more low-level waste from nuclear facilities, universities and hospitals" BBC
"It is the issue which just about every politician would like to wish away; but there is no sign yet of any magic wand which can make 10,000 tonnes of radioactive waste simply disappear" BBC
"Highly radioactive waste was pumped into the sea and evidence of the pollution was covered up by managers who had a “reckless” disregard for public health, according to Herbie Lyall, a health physics surveyor at the Dounreay plant in Caithness for 30 years. They come as the plant’s owner, the UK Atomic Energy Authority, is facing a possible criminal prosecution over a series of radioactive leaks. The latest find was on Friday when a stone contaminated with caesium-137 was recovered from another beach 20 miles from Dounreay. The authority has admitted that “at least several hundreds of thousands” of plutonium and uranium particles, each the size of a grain of sand, have been released from Dounreay." Times
"The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is considering burning thousands of tonnes of radioactive graphite - the health impact could be huge" New Scientist
Despite the fact Britain wastes 'more than half the power it produces through generation and transmission losses in the National Grid', and better, way more acceptable alternatives are available 3, another plot has been concocted and packaged, the repercussions of which could well be felt for decades or longer.
Blair's judgement and ethics are non-existent which should come as no shock, as he is little more than a puppet for rancid globalist policy himself, where his sociopathic, whore and con artist skills come in handy to decieve the British people that the meltdown of reality they are watching is a 'tough choice' in the name of progress/reform/whatever. Every week another scandal seems to emerge with an identical pattern from within the New Labour sanctum, reminding us all, that as tough choices go, permitting Blair to remain in office was one that the UK is still paying for dearly and will for a very long time to come past his demise. Perhaps we are to take it then, that the nuclear policy, despite whatever domestic energy forecasts cited, has come from somewhere else, before it was adopted by the NL regime.
Whatever the scientific arguments for atomic energy or about global warming (which may well be a globalist scam), Blair's personal advocacy for nuclear is about as worthwhile as his one for WMD in Iraq, a parallel, I was relieved to discover, that many newspapers are also making, including the Sunday Times, who have said the new 'report' will be a dodgy dossier on the subject:
"There is something strangely familiar about the tactics being used to turn the financial basket case that is the nuclear industry into the shining new hope of Britain’s energy sector. [...]
Tom Burke, the veteran environmentalist and opponent of nuclear energy, believes that, as with the Iraq war, the public is being misled about the choices."
If Blair's plan went ahead, one can only pity that poor British soul and his family, who presumbably, will have to make the 'tough choice' of living next to a new crater of rotting exploding radioactive slops and forcibly endure a whopping rigged energy levy to pay for that privilege to boot.
Tony Blair Nuclear David King energy New Labour CBI gas atomic