Investigation into interest groups and conflicts involved in nuclear power stations and national parks.

Authors Avatar

Investigation into interest groups and conflicts involved in nuclear power stations and national parks:

Who are the interest groups:

*Local unemployed

*Locals

*National power grid

*Workers

*CND (campaign for nuclear disarmourment)

*Green peace

*Friends of the earth

*Ministry of defence

*The government

*National parks

*BNFL (British nuclear fuels)

*Environment agency

*CORE (Cambrians opposed to radioactive environment)

*ICRP (international commission on radiological protection)

*The world

Conflicts with the national parks and nuclear power:

*Pylons and power lines

*Nuclear waste storage

*Environmental pollution

*High potential health hazard

*National park tourism

*Livelihood

*Nuclear transportation through national parks

*Increased leukaemia in area surrounding nuclear power stations

See more of the above below;

Pylons and power lines:

There is considerable controversy not just over the sitting to the national park but also because of the associated high voltage transmission lines needed

To connect the stations to the National Grid. Indeed to many observers the

construction of these power lines has caused a greater visual impact on

the landscape than the construction of the stations themselves.

High potential health hazard:

There is a high potential health hazard for nuclear power stations if there is a fire or explosion. In Chernobyl there was a meltdown, which they thought would go down into the earths mantle and start a volcanic eruption, but thankfully it didn’t.

Environmental pollution:

Between 1952 and 1995, Sellafield dumped 182 kilograms of plutonium down a pipeline into the Irish Sea. This amounts to 717 terabecquerels (TBq) of radioactivity--about half the fallout of plutonium in the entire North Atlantic from 520 atmospheric bomb tests in the 1960s.

Nuclear waste storage:

Tonnes of intermediate (liquid and solid) nuclear waste was being produced in sellafield before there was any known way of storing it safely. So it remained in the station until a ditch was dug for temporary storage. Nuclear waste can be stored safely by turning it into glass ingots by adding borosilicate to the waste, which allows waste to be stored for 50,000 years and not radioactive, and also able to be ground to fine powder sill be harmless.

National park tourism:

The tourism in the national park would go if there were an accident or proved high radiation levels in the national park, like in Snowdonia N.P or The Lake District N.P.

There does not have to be an accident or proof of radiation to stop tourists though,

If the plant is despised so much there will be no tourism in the park, then no

Maintenance or conservation to keep it a national park unless funded by government.

Livelihood:

The locals livelihood would be affected by a nuclear power station,

E.g. where once was a local green or park is know a towering power station and would be to imposing.

Join now!

Nuclear transportation through national parks:

There is great opposition on the transportation of nuclear fuel or waste travelling through anywhere, but especially in national parks. If there were an accident or spill the area/park would be devastated for years if not centuries.

There is proof that there is increased numbers of people with leukaemia around nuclear power stations:

Here is a story of three girls that died from the radiation and acute leukaemia in sellafield.

“A couple who say radiation killed three of their daughters have pledged to re-open the investigation into the deaths following a damming report ...

This is a preview of the whole essay