Letter: Thorp decision to be challenged
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.Sir: In his statement to the House of Commons giving approval to radioactive discharges from British Nuclear Fuels's reprocessing facility, John Gummer stated that he was satisfied that 'there is a sufficient balance of advantage in favour of the operation of Thorp, and we are satisfied that the activities giving rise to the discharges permitted by the authorisation are justified'. This bland statement papers over a Whitehall crevasse full of inconsistencies and bureaucratic fudges that the Government needs to keep hidden in order to approve Thorp.
Mr Gummer failed to say that it is government policy to 'justify' any radioactive emissions. Thorp is a reprocessing facility, yet he says 'decisions about whether to use the authorisation in order to reprocess spent fuel are for others'. Who can he mean? The nuclear enthusiasts at the Department of Trade and Industry? BNFL? How can Mr Gummer think 'the activities' are justified when the only thing Thorp does is to reprocess spent fuel, and he has ignored reprocessing?
The truth is, of course, that reprocessing cannot be justified because it causes proliferation, environmental and health risks, for no benefit and no good purpose. Only by conjuring tricks to ignore this most basic question can Mr Gummer pull the white elephant out of the hat and approve Thorp's radioactive emissions while having no view about Thorp itself.
This is but one of many reasons why we shall continue to press for a public inquiry into Thorp, so that a proper decision can be taken after full and open debate, instead of a Whitehall stitch-up. As Mr Gummer has rejected a public inquiry, we shall take the case to the courts.
Yours faithfully,
PETER MELCHETT
Executive Director
Greenpeace UK
London, N1
15 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments