EDF has a moral duty to be transparent over safety
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.The extreme rainfall, strong winds and high tides of this winter have exposed the vulnerability of the British coastline to erosion and flooding.
It is therefore clearly in the public interest to know about any measures that are being taken by the nuclear industry to avert potential flooding of the country’s nuclear reactors, most of which are built on the coast.
EDF, which is largely owned by the French Government, has done nothing illegal in playing down the lengthy outage at Dungeness B due to the re-building of the station’s flood defences.
But doing the bare minimum in terms of public information does the company little credit.
Following the Fukushima accident in March 2011, the UK’s nuclear facilities were scrutinised by Mike Weightman, HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations and head of the Office of Nuclear Regulation.
Dr Weightman was specifically charged with the task of searching for Fukushima-like vulnerabilities, but found none.
“I remain confident that nuclear facilities in the UK continue to be safe to operate and I remain confident in the robustness of the nuclear safety regime in the UK,” Dr Weightman said when his report was published in October 2011.
However, this confidence is not universally felt by the wider public, largely because of the industry’s long history of obfuscation and untruths – such as the notorious cover-up of the 1957 fire at Windscale (now Sellafield).
Given this record, EDF should know that it has a moral as well as legal duty to be as transparent as possible when it comes to safety.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments