Letter: Fuel for debate
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: BNFL's criticisms (letter, 4 November) of Friends of the Earth's arguments against the commissioning of Sellafield's MoX plant are wrong.
Firstly, Arthur Roberts quotes Foreign Office Minister Derek Fatchett as saying that MoX fuel only poses an "extremely low" proliferation risk to justify producing and exporting a fuel that can be used to make nuclear weapons. The Indian and Pakistani tests show how short-sighted it is to believe profitable nuclear exports do not aid nuclear weapons proliferation. It is our duty wisely to build on, not rashly squander, post-Cold War trust by not re-awakening Chinese or Korean fears through the export of weapons-capable MoX fuel to Japan.
Secondly, he states that FOE is "misleading" about MoX waste. Not true. With much more deadly radioactive plutonium, Neptunium-237 and Americium- 241, used MoX fuel is hotter, more poisonous and as long lasting as used uranium fuel.
Thirdly, he states that "Wastes arising from reprocessing MoX fuel can be handled in a similar manner to wastes arising from spent uranium fuel, using existing plants at Sellafield." This suggests that Sellafield is happy to deal with the waste from the MoX fuel it exports by reprocessing it and then storing the waste. BNFL must now tell the public whether it is prepared to offer, or has offered, its foreign customers this facility.
Fourthly, he suggests that there is a market for all BNFL's MoX fuel as it is not much more expensive than uranium fuel. BNFL ensured that the Environment Agency withheld all the figures needed to check such a statement. If BNFL wants to show us that MoX's operations will not be subsidised by the taxpayer, it should show us a full set of signed contracts as it did with THORP.
Dominick Jenkins
Friends of the Earth
London N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments