Anti-Nuclear, blue green, Bob Crow, dangers of nuclear, environmentalism, Faslane, learning new jobs, nuclear is dangerous, nuclear power, nuclear reactors, nuclear warheads, nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage, nuclear weapon, nuclear weapons, spent fuel transport, trade unions, Trident
“I’ll make my position absolutely clear to my unions, I would ban all nuclear power altogether, it’s not safe“. He goes on to say that “if we really want to talk about environmental friendly energy“, that it should be compulsory for every house built in Britain to have solar panels, that the use of hot rock (geothermal) and tidal should be examined. (BBC 4, 26 Oct. 2013, (17:37) recorded Fri. 25 Oct. 2013, Thetford-Thomas Paine Common Sense Club ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dvxyv
Photo of Bob Crow by Jarle Vines, March 2012 (CC BY-SA-3.0) 
“The late ‘Robert ‘Bob’ Crow (13 June 1961 – 11 March 2014) was a British trade union leader who served as the General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) from 2002 until his death. He was also a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Crow
Rail Maritime and Transport union boss Bob Crow led the charge against the weapons system with a motion which branded the idea of replacing Trident as ‘immoral’ and a ‘scandalous waste of public funds’… Mr Crow ridiculed the argument on job cuts, saying: ‘What about when we used to hang people? We had chief executioners – we had to diversity and find new jobs for them.’ Workers could be re-skilled to build hospitals, he argued.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5342812.stm BBC, “Unions oppose replacing Trident“, 13 September 2006.
“If we have nuclear fuel there is going to be nuclear waste which is moved by rail. As a union we are opposed to nuclear power stations but nevertheless if you have nuclear power stations you will have nuclear waste. The safest way to move nuclear waste is by rail and sea and that is what we operate at the moment.” “Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 19, 16 January 2008” Mr Bob Crow, OPL [2,3]
He understood the dangers of nuclear energy, he understood the dangers of nuclear weapons, he understood the related danger of nuclear waste, and the transportation thereof. However, he also understood that as long as the industry continues that safety mattered. He could imagine other more environmentally friendly ways of making energy and jobs. He wasn’t looking backwards; he was looking forwards.
He must have certainly understood, as well, that it is good that there are people who don’t mind taking care of nuclear waste, because it’s going to be with us for an eternity. That should spell jobs safely packaging it and re-packaging it and guarding it. It is important to have unionized workers who will put safety first and act as collective whistleblowers. Unless, of course, everyone prefers to eat and drink the radioactive waste, or volunteerism. It is actually a good job for military.
Caring for the nuclear waste, which already exists, is important and honourable. Creating more nuclear waste is criminal. Nuclear energy legally leaks dangerous radionuclides, throughout the entire fuel cycle, even if there are no accidents. These have been accumulating in the environment for over 70 years. At some point it will be too late. Nuclear Energy is nuclear war everyday.
Those working in the nuclear waste business, who want more nuclear anything, are either dangerously ignorant, or in a state of denial about its dangers, or they are criminal. We remain even more perplexed by those who are against nuclear weapons, but accept nuclear energy, which has increasingly poisoned the plant and all life upon it for over 70 years.
Is dying a slow, painful, death from cancer or other radiation-induced illnesses, or having one’s genetic lineage end, due to radiation-induced infertility, better than getting it over with quickly in a nuclear war? And, when did you hear of a nuclear weapon going off accidentally over the last 70 years? There were some near misses. And, yet we have all heard of Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Windscale, and there were more, that are not discussed, and so many near misses that it would be hard to itemize them all. Most people do not know that nuclear reactors legally leak all of the time.
Normally we speak of quick deaths as being more humane. So, if it weren’t for the fact that nuclear weapons require upkeep, which makes more nuclear waste, and are also often on nuclear submarines, which legally leak radionuclides, it would be fair to conclude that, at least up until today, nuclear weapons have proven more safe than nuclear energy. Nonetheless, we remain highly concerned since French Thales is responsible for various safety aspects of the UK submarines at Faslane, near Glasgow. Also, obviously concerned about the legal leakage of radionuclides into the air and water of Scotland. Recently, nuclear warheads are said to have been transported through Glasgow, including over a bridge, during a snowstorm.
This provides a list of unions opposed to Trident-Nuclear weapons: “UK Union policies on Trident” http://www.cnduk.org/about/item/1154 However, for reasons that we still cannot fathom, some are opposed to Nuclear weapons, without being opposed to nuclear energy. Discussion of union views (pre-Fukushima): http://www.banthebomb.org/magazine/May06/Trade%20Unions.htm Part is probably because they do not know that legal leakage, into the environment is allowed during mining, processing, reactor operation, and waste.
Two UK unions which are either dangerously ignorant, in denial, or criminal in promoting new nuclear reactors: http://www.gmb. org.uk/newsroom/danger-of-dispute-at-sellafield http://www.unitetheunion. org/news/sellafield-workers–campaign-for-a-future/ They haven’t even cleaned up the old nuclear mess yet! But they want to make more!
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_Crow.JPG http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
 House of Commons, Transport Committee, Freight Transport, Eighth Report of Session 2007–08, Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2008, Published on 19 July 2008, © Parliamentary copyright 2008, OPL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/249/249.pdf
 It appears the safest way, assuming rail upkeep, which doesn’t seem to be happening near Sellafield.
Bob Crow was critical of cost-cutting on rail repairs and justifiably so, it seems: “Rail Union Blames Cost-cutting for Cumbrian Viaduct Accident“, By Julian Whittle, Wednesday, 17 November 2010, News & Star. Read about the lamentable state of the rail tracks near Sellafield here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/nuclear-train-not-fit-for-tracks/
However, the road infrastructure appears to lack upkeep, as well: “Huge Potholes Making Cumbrian Residents’ Lives a Misery“, by Freya Findlay. Tuesday, 27 January 2015, News & Star.
Maybe the lack of rail upkeep has to do with the rail network undercharging for the transport of nuclear spent fuel? “It is regrettable that the correct traffic levels for spent nuclear fuel were not applied in PR08 to calculate the appropriate charge, resulting in a substantial error in the scale“(p. 525) “One mark-up charge already exists – for freight only lines. We are introducing a new freight specific charge (FSC) covering coal for the electricity supply industry, spent nuclear fuel and iron ore, so that the charges cover more of the costs incurred. These are the commodities that are able to bear a mark-up26. The latest information on freight avoidable costs27 suggested that these commodities should face a significant mark-up.” (p.30) “Office of Rail Regulation | June 2013 | Draft determination of Network Rail‟s outputs and funding for 2014-19” http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/453/pr13-draft-determination.pdf http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
“On 1 September 2014, Network Rail was reclassified as a central government body, adding around £34 billion to public sector net debt.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
Last July it was reported: “a flatrol rail wagon, used to transport flasks filled with spent nuclear fuel from Oldbury site, was found to have small fragments of contaminated debris on its arrival at Sellafield.” http://www.magnoxsites.co. uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SSG-Rob-Ledger-Deputy-Site-Directors-report-31-July-2014.pdf
House of Commons, Transport Committee, Freight Transport, Eighth Report of Session 2007–08, Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence,Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2008, Published on 19 July 2008, © Parliamentary copyright 2008, OPL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/249/249.pdf
Yellow and red highlights above, as well as bold throughout blog post, added for emphasis.