Leading Article: Why Thorp issues must go public
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.HIGH IN the concrete awfulness of the Department of the Environment, John Selwyn Gummer is wrestling with his conscience. Together with Gillian Shephard, the Agriculture Secretary, he has to decide whether to give the go-ahead to the Thorp reprocessing plant. The issues at stake are immense, enough to trouble a man with much more stunted moral sensitivities.
Unfortunately, Mr Gummer's is a private travail. It is 16 years since these issues were weighed in public, at the 100-day-long Windscale inquiry. The inquiry's report, which allowed the pounds 2.8bn plant to be built, was controversial then: it is entirely discredited now. Thorp was approved to extract plutonium and uranium for re-use in fast-breeder reactors, and to make it easier to dispose of nuclear waste. But fast-breeders have been abandoned, the world is awash with unwanted plutonium and uranium, and the Government's own advisers say there is no need for Thorp.
There are arguments for the plant. It would provide much-needed employment in West Cumbria and pile up a lot of Japanese yen to assist the balance of payments. But it will also raise electricity prices, increase pollution (causing, over a long time, hundreds of extra deaths in the world), and greatly increase the risk of the spread of nuclear weapons.
By law and custom, ministers must establish that the benefits outweigh the perils. This is not being seen to be done. Even the economic study that, we are assured, shows Thorp to be viable is being kept secret. The honest and honourable course for ministers would be to hold another public inquiry so that the arguments can be aired and weighed openly.
(Photograph omitted)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments