Environmentalists’ Blockade

The environmentalists blockade took place on 26th April 2007, the anniversary of the explosive meltdown of the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, near the border with Belarus. Twenty one years ago on that day, a nuclear reaction went out of control whist the safety system was temporarily switched off. Temperatures reached over 2000oC, the fuel rods melted and the graphite covering the reactor ignited. With a violent explosion, the 1000-tonne sealing cap on the reactor was blown off and radioactive fuel and fission products released into the air, contaminating neighbouring towns, through Ukraine and Belarus and spreading across Europe. The explosion released 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Chernobyl is a terrible reminder of how dangerous nuclear material is to human life and health and the wider environment, a reminder that things can go wrong, and when it does it can be devastating. Officially, 31 workers at the reactor died from the direct effect of the explosion, and the 45,000 inhabitants of the nearby town of Pripyat were evacuated. However, the number of deaths from the radiation which spread throughout Europe is expected to reach tens of thousands. The impact is still being experienced even in Scotland where a number of sheep farms remain sufficiently contaminated that they are unable to sell their animals.

The idea for an environmentalists blockade was initiated by a motion to the AGM of Friends of the Earth Scotland in May 2006. Friends of the Earth has a strong track record of opposition to nuclear power, and a presumption against nuclear weapons. Although many FoE members, activists and staff have been involved in anti Trident campaigns, there hasn’t been a focus on campaigning against nuclear weapons in recent years. However, with the prospect of unpopular new nuclear power stations in Scotland and the replacement decision of Trident, the time was ripe to make the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons explicit with an environmentalists’ blockade. Eventually a small group of activists mostly from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace got together to plan the event.

Star of the blockade was Nellie, the 20 foot inflatable white elephant with a nuclear symbol attached, saying ‘Say No to Nuclear Power: it’s a white elephant’

Unfortunately the police wouldn’t let Nellie anywhere near either of the gates to Faslane, clearly mistaking her for a Trojan horse, so she took up residence outside the peace camp, alerting passers by to the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. However, thanks to a team of committed volunteers, Nellie had produced a large clutch of daughters who accompanied the protesters down to the North gate.

At the North Gate the protest took the form of a rally, with speeches from across a wide range of environmental groups. Duncan McLaren affirmed that Friends of the Earth Scotland was proud to add its voice to the opposition to nuclear weapons in Scotland, and to continue to campaign against replacement nuclear power plants. He said “In Scotland debate on nuclear weapons amongst the public, politicians and trade unions has been largely separate from that over nuclear power. But globally the two are joined at the hip. The lesson to be learned from the Chernobyl disaster is that the world needs fewer nuclear facilities, not more.”

Mandy Meikle from Greenpeace (Edinburgh Active Supporters Group) added:
"More than 40 years after the UK government signed an international treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons, Tony Blair is planning to reverse all that, and rush through plans to build new weapons - a replacement for Trident. These plans aren't going down well in Scotland with most people opposed to wasting some £76 billion on Trident. This money should be invested in tackling climate change and building new infrastructure for our low-carbon future."

The nuclear power industry has been promoting itself as a low carbon energy source which can be part of the solution to climate change, an argument which the then prime minister Tony Blair had fallen for. Many of the speakers at the rally referred to what a spurious argument that is. Gary Glass from the climate campaign group Rising Tide said that the group was firmly against nuclear power as a solution to climate change, partly because it isn’t a solution compared to real policies to reduce energy consumption and shift to renewables, and partly because the nuclear legacy is as dangerous as a chaotic climate. Indeed, the combination of climate change and nuclear material makes transport and storage of nuclear material especially risky as weather patterns become more extreme and unpredictable.

Leaving a legacy to future generations of carcinogenic toxicity is hardly an improvement on the droughts, diseases, floods, pests, hurricanes and crop failures which climate change will bring. As Dr Richard Dixon, Director of WWF Scotland said: "Very few things are a bigger threat than climate change but a major exchange of nuclear weapons is certainly one of them. Scotland has the best renewable energy resources of any country in Europe, if anyone should be getting rid of all things nuclear and going for clean, green energy it is us."

Dixon also emphasised that “Given the inextricable historical link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors it is very appropriate that we are at Faslane to remember the event of 21 years ago at Chernobyl.” The memory and ongoing struggle of the people directly affected by Chernobyl is being kept alive by the charity Chernobyl Children, which gives an opportunity for children from Pripyat and other areas most directly affected by the radioactive explosion to get a break and a wee holiday in parts of the world which are less polluted, such as Scotland – so far.

April 26th 2007 was the week before the election to the Scottish Parliament, so one would think that politicians would be falling over themselves to add their voice to the protests against unpopular nuclear weapons and power. Most political parties in Scotland have some form of policy against the replacement of Trident and a number of them are opposed to nuclear power. However, only one party accepted the invitation to speak at a rally which connected the two: Stuart Collison of the Scottish Green Party, and candidate for West of Scotland. As it turned out, the election was won, just, by the Scottish Nationalist Party which is also opposed to both nuclear weapons and power and with the support of the Greens formed a minority government. It remains to be seen what they can do about this whilst defence and energy policy remain at Westminster, even though many individual Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians are personally opposed.

Following the speeches and a wee bit of singing, we tucked into some delicious lunch from the Jeely Peace Café for which we were extremely grateful. This provided a good bit of fuel for the symbolic die-in of the afternoon. On the sound of a siren, we all lay down in front of the gate for two minutes. When the siren stopped, an eerie silence hung in the air until the police started asking us to move. Those who chose to, rose and moved out of the way but three of us stayed put, delaying the opening of the doors for a few more minutes until we were arrested and removed. Two of these three were arrested for the first time, although charges were later dropped.

So far this has been the story of the rally at the North gate. There were actually two environmentalists’ blockades on the same day. In a neat division of labour, the North Gate rally was the main focus for the environmental NGOs including those whose charitable status or personal circumstances prevented risking arrest, whilst independently, a group of autonomous direct action environmentalists closed down Coulport by erecting a tripod and staying there for several hours.

The emphasis at both protests was the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. What is this connection and why emphasise it. At a certain superficial level, nuclear weapons and nuclear power are made from the same stuff, albeit in different forms. Naturally occurring Uranium ore contains a mixture of three isotopes of Uranium, U234, U235 and U238, along with a number of radioactive products of decay. More than 99% of the Uranium is U238 which is the least radioactive isotope and only 0.7% is the highly radioactive U235, the fissile material used to generate energy. Uranium ore is therefore processed to increase the proportion of U235. Uranium with a U235 concentration of 3% is suitable for electricity generation (Low Enriched Uranium), whereas weapons require a U235 concentration of 90% (High Enriched Uranium). The remaining U238, or ‘Depleted Uranium’ is highly dense material which is used in military armour and weapons.

The environmental hazards of both weapons and power start with the mining of Uranium. Brooks and Seth (1998) argue that “In most countries, uranium mining has been the most hazardous step of nuclear materials production, both in terms of doses and in the number of people affected.”2 Uranium miners are exposed to the radiological and chemical toxicity of Uranium and its decay products through inhalation and ingestion, and through the accumulation of these substances in their tissues. High incidence of cancers of the bone and lung, kidney disease, tuberculosis and rheumatoid arthritis are found in uranium miners. The mine operations also affect local communities with the toxins remaining in the tailings.
These health impacts are an environmental injustice. “The burden from the effects of uranium production, driven by a few countries seeking nuclear weapons and nuclear power has been disproportionately carried by indigenous, colonized and other dominated peoples. Approximately two-thirds of the United States' uranium deposits are on Native American land and almost a third of all mill tailings produced in the U.S. from abandoned mill operations are on Navajo land. Northern Saskatchewan, home to some of the richest reserves, and where over 20% of uranium in the world is mined, is inhabited by the Cree and Dene.” (Brooks and Seth 1998) Most of the UK’s Uranium comes from North America, Australia and Central and Southern Africa. UK company Rio Tinto mined Uranium in apartheid South Africa and occupied Namibia. Even where mines are closed, the legacy of radioactivity and toxicity are bequeathed to the local communities, and the prospect of illegal Uranium extraction ensures that the poorest risk their lives to supply a black market in radioactive materials.
Uranium is processed to increase the concentration of the fissile U235. Although the concentrations in Low and High Enriched Uranium are very different, they are essentially achieved by the same process, and with the right technology it is possible to convert from one to the other. In the UK, the two forms of Uranium are kept separate, although it is very difficult to verify this since the UK is reluctant to allow international inspection of its weapons.

The Depleted Uranium which is the waste product of enrichment continues to provide environmental and health damage. When used in weapons or armoury or field tests, Depleted Uranium can be inhaled or ingested where it is radioactively and chemically toxic and can cause genetic mutations, tumours, birth defects, neurological damage, and cellular dysfunction.3

The connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons is as much political as physical: the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty is designed to keep the two separate. Nations are given assistance in developing nuclear power, so long as they agree not to develop or expand their nuclear weapons. This has the purpose, supposedly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons (and to move towards their reduction) whilst defending the right of nations to develop their own nuclear power. In fact the impact is to retrench the nuclear weapons capacity of the first group of states with nuclear weapons, whilst encouraging the proliferation of nuclear power.

Moreover, it does nothing to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons as non-nuclear states are attracted to the power which nuclear weapons preserve. Indeed, states which aspire to nuclear weapons are tempted to develop nuclear power as a half-way house, complete with technological support from the nuclear states. As soon as India had tested nuclear weapons, the US moved to negotiate a deal which would provide India with access to nuclear power technology. If the UK were really to fulfil its NPT obligations and negotiate in good faith to reduce its nuclear arsenal (including the non-replacement of trident) then this would be destabilised by the presence of nuclear power, and therefore the capacity to convert low grade uranium to high grade. Whilst the nuclear powers try to keep nuclear power and weapons separate, it is important therefore that campaigners keep them together.

It is true that nuclear weapons contain hazards which nuclear power does not, primarily the fact that nuclear weapons are deliberately explosively released in a way which necessarily kills and maims innocent civilians. The material which is stored and transported for nuclear weapons has considerably higher toxicity and greater instability than that required for nuclear power. Nuclear weapons are tested, and radioactive material is deliberately spread in a way that doesn’t apply to nuclear power.

However, many of the dangers of nuclear material apply to both weapons and electricity generation. It would be a nonsense to oppose nuclear weapons and support nuclear power. The risk of windscale or Dounreay style leaks applies equally to both kinds of nuclear facilities, or of Chernobyl style accidental explosion. And so too does the problem of decommissioning and storage of waste which remains highly toxic for many thousands of years.

But perhaps the biggest problem is that nuclear weapons are not fit for purpose even within their own terms. Having nuclear weapons today is a greater threat and makes life more dangerous and increases the risk which nuclear power stations bring. Trident and its like are designed for a cold war threat – a clear target with opposing ideology but comparable weapons. In the globalised world we live in, asymmetrically dominated by the US with an arsenal many times greater than any potential rival, the kind of threat which faces Britain now is from the low tech weapons of the terrorist. Nuclear weapons, their raw materials and waste become a terrorist target which would maximise the destruction caused by a mortar, grenade or suicide bomb. The same is true for nuclear power stations