Campaigners stage weekend rally at Hinkley Point (From Bridgwater Mercury)

Time to get out the water cannons ! just to give them a wash lol. Hundreds of police man hours wasted on looking after them. TOTAL MADNESS!! free speech gone mad!! We all need electricity and there is no other viable alternative (I wish there was) if the protesters get their way we will all need lots of candles .

no comments from the protesters in the story must mean they're to smelly for reporter to talk too #poooooh

mmmmm...a few hedge monkeys stopped of in Costa for a coffee...made using nuclear powered electricity

If they're so "against" nuclear power you'd think the last place they'd want to be is outside a powerstation!

Why we don`t need Hinkley C nuclear power station
This would be the first new nuclear power station in Britain for over 20 years. The government says that Hinkley C will be safe, economic and is urgently needed to combat climate change.
Five reasons why they`re wrong:
1. Risk to health & safety
Nuclear power stations risk a catastrophic accident resulting in a large release of radioactive material in to the environment. This is what happened at Chernobyl in 1986 and again at Fukushima in Japan in 2011. This potential for a release of deadly radiation into the atmosphere makes nuclear power stations a prime target for a terrorist attack.
The reactors proposed for Hinkley are a new French design with no operating track record. Safety issues are still not resolved. Radiation from the routine operation of nuclear power stations can affect the health of people living nearby. Studies show increased levels of cancer and infant deaths downwind of Hinkley Point and Burnham - on- sea.
2. Hazardous Waste
Nuclear power in Britain has already left a trail of hazardous materials to be guarded well beyond our lifetime. There is still no final disposal site to securely contain this waste, let alone that from any new power stations.
The highly radioactive fuel from Hinkley C would be stored on site, despite the risk of sea flooding for at least 100 years. Residual radioactivity means that shut down power stations, like Hinkley A, take decades to clean up. They will then have to be securely guarded for decades more. Some nuclear waste will remain radioactive for up to a million years.
3. Massively Expensive
Nuclear power has always proved more expensive than predicted, with regular subsidies and loans from the government; the cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear plants has risen to a massive£70 billion. Most of this bill will be picked up by taxpayers. The new generation of nuclear plants are proving just as expensive, In France an identical reactor to the one planned for Hinkley has almost doubled in cost from £3billion to £6billion. EDF is now asking for a massive government subsidy to build Hinkley C.
4. There are better ways to reduce CO2
Reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (co2) produced by power station is good for the climate. But nuclear power produces more co2 than is claimed.
Using renewable energy instead would save much more carbon dioxide and avoid all the problems of waste and accidents.
5. Building Hinkley C will bring more problems than benefits
Over 400 acres of agricultural land, woods and hedgerows will be sacrificed and coastal nature reserves damaged. The area will be blighted for up to ten years. Already overcrowded roads will be jammed with heavy vehicles, noise will echo through the local villages. The coastline will be scarred by a jetty to bring in aggregate. A new line of the largest overhead pylons will stretch 37 miles from Hinkley Point to Bristol. Only 20% of construction jobs will go to people from Somerset. Local democracy has been over-ruled. There will be no public inquiry into EDF`s plans and the final decision will be taken by the government.
Fukushima: A terrible warning
In March 2011 an earthquake followed by a tsunami severely damaged four nuclear reactors on the coast off northern Japan. The fuel inside them melted, releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere and sea.
Eighteen months later more than 150,000 people cannot return to their homes, children have to wear masks in school playgrounds and health effects are emerging. Over a third of nearly 40,000 children living near Fukushima have abnormal growths on their thyroids.
If an accident like Fukushima happened in Somerset, the town of Bridgwater would have to be evacuated.
It could happen here. In 1607 a massive wave swept inland from the sea across the area where Hinkley Point is now, killing 2,000 people.
The Japanese have learned to their cost that nuclear power can come up with unpleasant surprises. All 54 reactors operating in the country were shut down after the accident and the government is now planning to abandon nuclear completely.
The Lights Won`t Go Out!
The UK can keep the lights on and reduce its carbon footprint without falling back on nuclear power. This will need a much stronger commitment to energy saving and increasing our range of renewable energy sources.
Surrounded by waves, tides and windy coasts, we are already committed to generating more of our electricity from renewable. Other countries are showing the way. Germany (population 80 million) currently gets 20% of its electricity from renewable and is looking for at least 80% by 2050. At the same time it is phasing out nuclear.
the bridgwater mercury have bee emailed all of these but will not publish them!!!!!1

We want a future not a disaster, Say no to new nuclear in the UK.
French State owned EDF Energy- the owner of Hinkley and Sizewell- is pressuring the government to increase the range of hidden subsidies on offer in a desperate bid to attract interest from sceptical investors
If EDF gets its way, it will be a double whammy for us –and for future generations. It will mean we pay twice: once as taxpayers and once as consumers through our energy bills.
I say put the £60bn earmarked for new nuclear in to a cleaner, greener, fairer future. The way forward is through energy reductions and greater investment in to renewable energy and energy storage fit for the 21st century.
We need to create a long-term sustainable energy plan that is based on people’s needs rather than making profits for investors. In May, energy secretary Charies Hendry told ministers at a select committee hearing that the government’s energy policy would be robust enough without including nuclear in the mix.
Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
The crisis is far from over: the sarcophagus covering the doomed Russian reactor is falling apart. Only this year, government finally approved the funding for a new one. The human population in the most heavily contaminated territories is in decline. In Belarus 80% of children were born healthy before Chernobyl, Now, just 26 years later, only 20% of children are born healthy.
Fukushima
Thanks to people power all of japans nuclear reactors were shut down in May, despite mass opposition in Japan, the Japanese government restarted Oi nuclear plant in July. Every Friday evening tens of thousands of Japanese people gather before Prime Minister Yoshihiko Node`s residence to continue to demonstrate. The crisis at Fukushima is far from over. The repercussion could be 10 to 85 times worse than Chernobyl.
The Japanese people are footing the bill. The company behind the power station, Topco, has had to be renationalised because of the spiralling costs of compensation and the ongoing attempts to stabilise the reactors.
Many people are still living in heavily contaminated areas that should have been evacuated. Food across Japan is heavily contaminated and people are being encouraged to support the farmers of Fukushima by eating it.
The triple meltdown is still in full swing continually contaminating the Pacific Ocean – and has reached the US.
All of the fuel pools in reactors 1, 2, 3, &4 are in bad condition. The pool in reactor 4 is of particular concern. Thousands of highly radioactive spent fuel rods are at risk of further explosion. Such a disaster would not only render Japan uninhabitable but also, experts say, contaminate the northern hemisphere.
The new EPR reactor design for Hinckley Point will produce radioactive waste that is so toxic that it will have to be stored on site for over 100 years.
Nuclear waste is the most difficult and dangerous substance to deal with on Earth and remains active for thousands of years. Nuclear material and waste is also used to make weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction.
The risk associated with flooding, low level radiation, human and mechanical accidents, make nuclear an expensive, unstable, uninsurable and disastrous technology in other words, a really dodgy old dinosaur of a technology.
The construction of the Finnish Olkiluoto 31,600MWe nuclear power plant reached a milestone on June 2010, after the installation of the reactor pressure vessel in the reactor building; this marked the beginning of the installation activities of nuclear components, coinciding with the start-up testing of electro-mechanical systems. The project has been delayed and is now expected to be operational by 2014, resulting in a loss of more than $2.8bn.
The British government should follow the example of the United States and place a moratorium on licensing new nuclear power stations until crucial issues about radioactive waste have been resolved ,
Japan and Germany did the same thing this past year...shut down the nuclear plants when they come up for review.
Following a recent court case, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided not to issue any new licenses for nuclear plants in the US until the full environmental consequences of the long term storage of nuclear waste have been investigated.
The UKs Office for Nuclear Regulation should follow the example of its American counterpart and call a halt to plans for new nuclear power stations until a long term solution to nuclear waste storage has been found, this includes Hinckley Point C Somerset.
I urge DECC to undertake a rigorous assessment of the UKs nuclear science and engineering capability along with proper consideration of the economic , technical and societal arguments for and against private sector delivery of nuclear power to support UK future energy needs .

Climate change is a major security threat, but it can`t be solved with the 20th century`s nuclear technologies. People trying to revive abandoned villages left contaminated by Fukushima nuclear disaster, raises concerns about about plans for a new generation of nuclear power reactor in Britain, starting with Hinkley C.
If Hinkley power station were to suffer the kind of accident that caused fires and explosions at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in March 2011.
Look again at the area around the new nuclear power plant that EDF Energy plans to build at Hinkley Point, with generous subsidies from the UK government. Bridgwater and the M5 motorway are less than 10 miles from Hinkley, so would be well within any total exclusion zone if Hinkley were to be built and suffer a nuclear accident. Depending on wind direction for a radioactive plume, Cardiff, Bridgwater, Taunton and Bristol are close enough to be turned in to ghost towns bereft of children and women of child-bearing age think about it.
When the Fukushima nuclear reactors were built, there was some local opposition-pointing out the dangers of radiation, earthquakes and tsunami .But most people supported the construction, which brought jobs to an area dependent on farming and fishing.They were happy to believe that the Japanese nuclear industry was the safest and best managed in the world. They were assured that the reactors would be earthquake proof. The govemment provided subsidies and local politician’s rallied support, ignoring the few dissenters who warned of potential catastrophe.
How the same thing s happening here, with far less excuse. Britain doesn’t have significant earthquakes or tsunami, but that isn`t the point. We do have accidents, terrorist attacks and sometimes even hurricanes. Any of these could precipitate a `perfect storm` scenario in which a power plant`s cooling system and its ` fail-safe` back-up were destroyed , leading to radiation releases from the exposure of reactor fuel or a meltdown. Climate change is undoubtedly a major security threat, but it can`t be solved with the 20th century`s catastrophic nuclear technologies. Japan, an industrialised island nation with twice Britain`s population, has been shocked into radically altering its energy polices, it plans to reduce reliance on both nuclear and fossil fuels, conserving through reduced consumption and shifting production towards greater micro-generation and sustainable solar, wind and tidal energy production.
Far from justifying nuclear power, climate chaos makes the rush to nuclear even crazier. Sae level rises and increases in extreme weather will exacerbate nuclear risks, not least because most power plants are built close to seas and rivers due to their insatiable need for cooling water. EDF`s design for Hinkley C is neither tried nor tested. The nuclear industry is trying to revive itself at our expense, though it has still not solved the problems of decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal from 50 years of nuclear power operations.

Government should rethink nuclear policy at Hinkley point.
Isn`t the growing threat of floods, cancer infant mortality and tsunami in the UK enough to stop the Hinkley power station proposal. A report prepared for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, considered that the risk of flooding a Hinkley Point in Somerset was currently low but would rise to high by 2080, with an impact of storm surge height of 0.8m, predicted and impact of sea level rise of 6m, worst case scenario for the end of the century.
The Hinkley Point reactors overlook the Bristol Channel and are defended by a sea wall with additional defence structure behind it. The shoreline is subject to strong winds, powerful waves and storm surges: this means that the greatest current risk to the power station comes from inundation from extreme events.
Accelerated sea level rise and predicted increases in storm surges could have significant impacts on this shoreline. Higher sea levels would narrow the wide foreshore which currently diminishes wave energy, leading to both increased erosion and a threat of inundation at the power station site. Current storm events are already overtopping the sea wall. The 0.7--0.8m increase in the 50- years surge height predicted by 2080 under the high emission scenario may add significant additional stress to the power station`s defence structures (a sea wall, backed by gabions) Siting a new nuclear plant to the east of the present stations would not be advisable or indeed feasible under current conditions, let alone with the predicted impacts of climate change.
The more elevated land to the west of the current site boundary is at present a relatively more resistant site. However, given that cliff line in this area is currently subject to erosion, and that the rate of erosion may increase over the lifespan and decommissioning period of a new power station, this site is also likely to become problematic in the long term and cannot be considered a practicable option. The risk associated with flooding, low level radiation, human and mechanical accidents make nuclear an expensive, unstable, uninsurable and disastrous technology in other words, a really dodgy old dinosaur of technology. Sea level rise, especially in Somerset, Hinkley power station will be under water within 100 years, said David Crichton, flood specialist and honorary professor at the hazard research centre at University College London. This will make decommissioning expensive and difficult, not to mention the recovery and movement of nuclear waste to higher ground.

Oh Gawd not another TauntonSocialistPart
y

no just a concerned parent that wants to change my childrens future. i dont want to sit around and ignor when something should be done. i work and live here and dont want to have to move away because nieve people wont read he facts and would rather sit back and drift in to the back ground then stand up and make a diffrance!!!!

So, cites then please - cut'n'paste with no reference is useless.

soldierswife123 wrote:
no just a concerned parent that wants to change my childrens future. i dont want to sit around and ignor when something should be done. i work and live here and dont want to have to move away because nieve people wont read he facts and would rather sit back and drift in to the back ground then stand up and make a diffrance!!!!

indeed cave's are the future

Why don't the tree huggers and bunny lovers stop using any electricity at all, then we would have spare capacity and wouldn't need to build Hinckley C.

If they then stopped driving it would then reduce global warming and them bleating on about saving the planet in the press coz their i phones wouldn't work and we could get on with our lives and they would be so proud of themselves for saving the planet, like scally666 said, from their caves.

Just read some of the drivel from soldiers wife123, seems to have been cut and pasted, the real comments to scally666's answer are up to the spelling standards of a five year old, whereas the original comments attributed to this correspondent would seem to be propaganda from either the green party or rent a mob.

Has someone been put up to this by others who wish to remain anonymous and pass of their views as those of a concerned resident?

We should be told!

What a load of nimbies and Wolfy Smith's spouting eco-babble and scary mongering nonsense. This development will bring much needed jobs and economic growth to our greatly deprived area. I agree with other comments, if they don't want this much needed extra capacity maybe they should live in a field, switch off their ipods and laptops. There are alternatives yes, but they will probably protest about those as well, Gas powered stations cause too much CO2 and would leave us beholden to Russian Gas, Wind farms need wind and the nimbies would complain that they spoil the environment as well, you just have to drive through Rooks Bridge to see the giant nimby posters about a proposed wind farm. Maybe we should put them all of exercise bikes linked to generators and they could generate the spare capacity that way, with all this energy they have to waste on pointless demonstrations.
This kind of nonsense wastes police resources, and causes inconvenience for locals. Go back to your wigwams and leave us in peace.

The long comments from Soldierswife123 probably are from more than one person.This does not make them wrong or inaccurate.
The latest exageration about HP2 is that it will provide 25,000 jobs.Even if the BBC got the figure wrong it is more than half of the whole population of Bridgwater.
As for some of the above comments complaining about people complaining,we are lucky to live in a country where it is legal to complain and protest.

It was quite funny to see that all people protesting were hippies that required an urgent wash. I also found it quite funny that even though they were fairly happy protesting against Hinkley Point, they were also fairly happy using up energy created there on Saturday with their very nice white which contained a working Television, a sound system and quite a few of them sat in Costa drinking coffee that is made using a machine which needs electricity.

Nuclear power is the future. Just ask Japan.

I think that it is only right & good that a debate is had on the pros & cons of Hinkley C and to me it comes down to whether the enormous risk is manageable and I continue to be pro. I know nuclear power is not 100% safe, terrorists, tsunamis etc. However, having read the previous comment my main thought is one of embarrassment of the name calling which pro supporters of the new power station have resorted. For me this lack of respect for others opinion is a sad reflection of society today.

Its a shame that those sneering and name calling are the ones in favour of committing future generations to the task of managing tons of spent nuclear fuel or by-products of nuclear reprocessing. High level nuclear waste has to be stored for thousands of years to avoid colossal contamination of land or oceans. There is not one human being on this planet who can guarantee this storage is completely safe and that it will prevent contamination for people in the future to deal with. I, along with all the other people against yet more nuclear reactors, do not want this responsibility dumped in the laps of my children or anyone else's for that matter, simply because money and greed speaks louder than the voice of reason. If people looked further up the ladder and found out just WHY we haven't invested in sustainable energy, then maybe they would begin to think for themselves; do their own research, instead of swallowing the biased information fed to us by politicians. It is the responsibility of every living soul to ensure the safety of our planet for future generations. Our children and grandchildren are walking into a minefield we are leaving behind us. It is unforgivable. Demanding resources without regard for their origin and the destruction and danger they cause shows a side of humanity we should all beware of. If we don't change our habits, just a couple of generations further down the line will see this planet in dire trouble. It has already begun and still people turn a blind eye. Denial is something uniquely human and it will be our downfall.

".. much of Chris Busby's work is self-published and difficult to access; he seems mainly to avoid publication in the recognised scientific literature, which presents difficulties for a proper review of the evidence underlying his conclusions."."

This is the scientific evidence being quoted it's difficult to trust the evidence of a maverick who won't let his evidence be challenged by other scientists!

He certainly does not appear to be well respected in scientific circles, and his papers have repeatedly been shown to be terminally flawed, for example by his setting the centre points of circular bands in order to include results that otherwise would be outwith those bands in order to get results which fit his agenda.
That is a standard of statistical analysis more usually found in secondary school science projects..
This looks like a good source of links to analysis of his papers: http://junksciencewa
tch.wordpress.com/


Back to the main topic, whilst I do not agree with the protestors views, I defend their right to hold them.

Mr_Opinionated wrote:
What a load of nimbies and Wolfy Smith's spouting eco-babble and scary mongering nonsense. This development will bring much needed jobs and economic growth to our greatly deprived area. I agree with other comments, if they don't want this much needed extra capacity maybe they should live in a field, switch off their ipods and laptops. There are alternatives yes, but they will probably protest about those as well, Gas powered stations cause too much CO2 and would leave us beholden to Russian Gas, Wind farms need wind and the nimbies would complain that they spoil the environment as well, you just have to drive through Rooks Bridge to see the giant nimby posters about a proposed wind farm. Maybe we should put them all of exercise bikes linked to generators and they could generate the spare capacity that way, with all this energy they have to waste on pointless demonstrations.
This kind of nonsense wastes police resources, and causes inconvenience for locals. Go back to your wigwams and leave us in peace.

Yup - they all protest, but conveniently forget what the mod cons are run on.

All that hot air would contribute to heating Rooksbridge for a while...

As for being beholden to Russia, I think the Irish might be about to cash in when they start exporting their new-found oil reserves...

EDF are the only remaining vendor to still remain committed to building a nuclear power station in the UK.

EON, Areva and RWE have both withdrawn from building other power stations elsewhere in the country.

Due to the escalating costs of building a modern power station, EDF are trying to attract funding from China to finance the costs of Hinkley C.

If this happens, expect a large proportion of the "local jobs" to filled by Chinese.

Honestly, I have had this argument on Facebook as well.....when will people realise we need nuclear power in this country....shall we go back to digging up coal?? hold on - surely that would be more environmentally damaging that nuclear??
As per usual, the pseudo-intellectual "free" thinkers look down on everyone who lives in the real world...Perhaps we could all join hands and use our collective energy to power our heating whilst we think of the next big conspiracy theory to argue for - maybe nuclear power is linked to the chem trails that the government are trying to subdue our minds with????