Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

This Q & A explains the arguments against nuclear power, showing why it is not the answer to climate change, being far from a carbon-free energy source. Its true costs are summarised and its unique dangers are highlighted, including nuclear weapons proliferation, the potential for catastrophic accidents and the problem of radioactive waste. The negative international impact of the UK choosing to build new nuclear power stations is explored as are the negative consequences of discriminatory 'fuel bank' projects which undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Q & A also gives ways in which campaigners can voice their opposition to nuclear…

Summary briefing of German government-commissioned research (KiKK study) showing that that there are large increases in cancer in children under five who live near nuclear power stations.

This paper sketches out how processes and materials for civilian nuclear programmes are usable for military purposes, and that the UK is a leading exporter of such materials. The contradictory nature of current international frameworks is discussed, with its policy of promoting peaceful nuclear ambitions while allowing any country to embark on a military programme by simply leaving the NPT. It notes that it is almost impossible to keep track of the transfer of materials from civilian to military applications. It concludes by arguing for the UK to not replace existing nuclear reactors and to place its stockpiles of fissile…

This paper criticises the arguments in favour of nuclear power as a means to reduce carbon emissions as part of the fight against global warning. Nuclear power is described as highly uneconomical, requiring large public subsidies, as well as unsustainable as it is based on uranium mining – a process that uses carbon fuels. A variety of safety concerns are also outlined, including the threat of accidents and terror attacks. It is concluded that UK carbon emission targets can be met without the use of nuclear weapons.

In this submission we re-submit the points we made previously in February 2010 relating to our arguments against new nuclear build but add further information and clarification on issues of nuclear waste and safety and security.

This submission focuses on CND’s concerns about the safety and security issues around new nuclear power stations. In particular, CND contradicts government assertions that the dangerous problems of nuclear waste and the threat of nuclear terrorism are already dealt with.

Summary to follow.

March 2002 Introduction 1. CND welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation document 'Managing Radioactive Waste Safely.' (1) 2. The document is essentially a consultation on the consultation process, and its recognition that public acceptance depends on effective and widespread dialogue is an important step forward. Unfortunately, however, the document offers no clearly defined objectives for the process of engaging the public and its format means that this initial stage is unlikely to have engaged many members of the public beyond the usual stakeholders. CND believes this was a missed opportunity. If progress is to be made on this…

May 2001 Introduction The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) welcomes the opportunity to comment on this fourth round of consultation on the Sellafield MOX Plant. CND's principal objection to the commissioning and operation of SMP has always been, and remains, centred on the proliferation risks inherent in plutonium separation and its re-use in MOX fuel. This concern has been reflected in our responses to the three previous rounds of consultation. Attached as Appendix 1 to this submission is a paper prepared by CND as part of the ongoing discussion on plutonium management within the Plutonium Working Group of the BNFL…

Summary to follow.

Summary to follow.