Nuclear power doesn’t benefit Britain, other nations

September 6, 2008

LONDON — Professor Emeritus John C. Ringle (“U.S. would benefit from nuclear power, “Opinion, Aug. 21) asserts, “France, Great Britain, Japan and Russia derive great benefit from reprocessing, ” and concludes, “We [The US] should be doing the same.”

I write from London, England. I cannot speak for France, Japan or Russia, but can enlighten your readers that the chemical separation of plutonium from uranium and fission products in irradiated nuclear fuel through the process called nuclear reprocessing has not proved a great benefit to Britain. It has resulted in significant radiological pollution of the Irish Sea, angering our neighbors, Ireland, for several decades, as well as Nordic neighbors, Norway, concerned over radiological pollution of their pristine fishing waters.

Sellafield’s most modern reprocessing plant, called Thorp, has been closed for over three years, following an accident in plutonium processing in July 2004. It is being slowly recommissioned, at a huge financial cost, despite many objections, including from Ireland.

There are indeed atomic advocates who, such as Prof. Ringle, want to try to make profitable re-use of the British reprocessed plutonium stocks. Recently the British National Nuclear Laboratory claimed the stockpile of over 106, 000 kilogrammes (106 metric tons) would be worth some £160 billion (around $300 billion) if converted to new nuclear fuel. (London Times, Aug.18, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article4553489.ece). This value of potential energy benefits is absurdly large. This laboratory is populated by many former scientists from British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), which used to own and operate Sellafield.

The British Government’s agency, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the British civil plutonium stockpile is currently consulting interested parties, including environmental groups, over plutonium disposition, including whether the stockpile should be deemed a future energy source, or a liability.

I would recommend your readers consult a recent report on the history of reprocessing at Sellafield (published by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, a group led by senior academics from Princeton University) by a researcher and campaigner – and who is also a former police officer – who has lived in the shadow of the plant for over 30 years, and who now runs an anti-atom group, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE), which may be accessed at: http://www.ipfmlibrary.org/rr05.pdf

Prof. Ringle might also be enlightened as to the realities of the failures of reprocessing in Britain if he reads this volume by this anti-nuclear group, about which in general he is so disparaging in his opinion article.

David Lowry, Ph.D., is an environmental policy and research consultant, member, Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates, contributing author to “The International Politics of Nuclear Waste” and “Nuclear or Not?