Arugments prepared by Dr. Alex Rosen, IPPNW Germany (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War)  for the MedAct conference “Healthy Planet – Better World” December 9 th -10 th 2016 in London

TASC recieved this  excellent summary report from Sean Morris of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA).  It provides the key financial, health, environmental and political arguments as to why nuclear energy is not the answer to dealing with global warming and climate change. It also outlines the development of the global renewable energy and decentralised energy revolution, and also touches on the issue of 'can environmentalists support nuclear energy?' It concludes they should not.

Download a copy of the report here

Feb 2014

By Regan Scott

Europe & EDF: a seventy page formal letter has been sent by Brussels competition officials to the UK government about the Hinkley deal with EDF. The best source so far on the 'strike price' deal, it shows there are two contracts, one to cover the investment and build period, and the better publicised strike price deal for a 35 year price guarantee, proofed for inflation, and set at £92.50.per megawatt hour. This is twice the current price for UK wholesale electricity. By 2058, the end of the strike price, it would be worth a wholesale guarantee price of £279 per MWh, compared to the present price of about £45.

The letter says ' the information provided does not substantially support' the view that the proposed state aid is needed. It is estimated at between £5 billion and £17.5 billion.

Brussels asks lots of questions and unpicks arguments, asks EDF competitors to send evidence (and citizens like us too) and looks likely to investigate and report by the end of the summer when EU Competition Commissioner Almunia ends his period of office.

To understand the Brussels approach, we need to know that state aids as such for energy are not banned. The questions are: is it necessary, are the terms fair and likely to be successful (getting nukes built) and proportionate to the problem. Watch these spaces.

part 1: why we don’t need nuclear now

In the first instalment of a two-part article arguing the case against nuclear energy, Andrew Blowers suggests that nuclear power is far from necessary either to maintain sufficient energy supply or to save the planet


here is the link to the article:

nuclear power – a flawed case

This information is also available as a leaflet.

Experts agree that high levels of radiation can kill and that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation: even at low levels, the potential for harm exists. The existing guidelines for ‘safe’ levels are based on the data obtained from the japanese atom bomb explosions of 1945. The fact remains, however, that so-called ‘safe’ exposure rates over the last 70 years have steadily been revised downwards as we find out more about the harmful effects of radiation exposure. (there are occasional exceptions - after the Fukushima accident in April 2011, the Government in Japan increased the permissible safe level of exposure for school children by 20 fold.1 Ministers defended the increase in the acceptable safety level as a necessary measure to guarantee the education of thousands of children. 2)