*** S E L L A F I E L D I S S A F E ***

by Joe Sheehan Tue Mar 05, 2002 14:16 jsheehan at subdimension dot com Limerick, Ireland

I assume that you are trying to bait people into reacting to your farcical comments, It is not only our belief but that of many others countries that Sellafield IS a danger to the world.
Please stop being an Ostrich take your head out of the sand:
Sellafield has a terrible safety record
Sellafield has made the Irish Sea one of the most radioactive masses of water in THE WORLD
Sellafield is the major polluter of the Artic
In 1990 University of Southampton Medical Research Council published a report that found instances of Leukaemia was 10 times higher in Seascale than what should be expected.
Same report showed that there was 4.5 times more cancer-related deaths in children in the Milom district than in the rest of the country.
Why these cancer figures because of the fresh air ? No. Becuase of Sellafied? I think so!

The list goes on and on

Check the Bellona report
http://www.bellona.no/pdfs/wp5_2002_Sellafield_English.pdf

by j piece Tue Mar 05, 2002 14:18

Open your eyes to the facts, please. It is a death trap! It has and will cause more deaths, your faith in your employers is pleasing but VERY misguided

by Joe Sheehan Tue Mar 05, 2002 15:10 jsheehan at subdimension dot com

Corrected link is here

http://www.bellona.no/pdfs/wp5_2001_Sellafield_English.pdf

by twat Tue Mar 05, 2002 16:44

Judging from your responses, Mr Sellafield Employee, you seem to have access to a fair bit of (mis)information regarding the operation of the plant. Would you care to reveal who or what organisation you represent and what your position is in that organisation?

by amanda Tue Mar 05, 2002 20:41

Costs were raised by fundraising. As you may be aware a sea seperates us in Ireland from Cumbria. (one of the worlds most polluted and radioactive seas btw, polluted by Irelands nuclear power plant in Carnsore point? No years of protests stopped that from being built. Oh yeah I remember its polluted by Sellafield!!!) So anyway, not being able to swim from here to there we went by FERRY on a BUS!!! ie. costs.
Ok, got it now?
If you can't understand that then I guess it would be hard for you to understand the more complex issues of the environmental damage done by your employers. Or the concept of working for free, and holding your own opinions not the ones the person who pays you gives you. Its sad, I'm sorry!

by Grattan Healy - Europen Parliament Tue Mar 05, 2002 22:30 grattan_healy at compuserve dot com

Dear Mr upset Sellafield employee, or paid lobbyist, whatever you really are,

You just don't get it, do you. I was three when Dr John Dunster made that statement about the WINDSCALE (SELLAFIELD) DISCHARGES BEING AN EXPERIMENT. Clearly we were the guinea pigs in that experiment, and I include myself, as I paddled and fell in the Irish Sea at the age of three. My mother has had cancer, my father and uncle died of it, and the East coast of Ireland is rotten with it. The bulk of illness in Drogheda's hospital is cancer.

If you don't want to be blamed for this, then turn it off. Otherwise, you will never hear the end of it. Incidentally, and end to reprocessing doesn't mean shutting Sellafield. In fact, they must be about the most secure jobs on the planet. Now that you have created the mess, you will have to look after it for hundreds of thousands of years, so no worries for you anyway.

And things haven't changed since 1958, as the whole nuclear industry, including you, display exactly the same cavalier attitude, and make the same hollow justifications. You can make your empty arguments because of your (present) political backing. Well, look around Europe - that backing is evaporating, despite your best efforts. And no way there will be a new nuclear station in Europe - wise up.

Sorry, but I am not wrong on the subsidies and cost of nuclear - check your facts. I prepared these arguments, and no less than the Competition Commissioner himself accepted them. You are contradicting some of the most prestigious economics institues in Europe, the ones that dared to question you.

In the end, it is simply far cheaper per Megawatt, as well as safer and more publicly acceptable to invest in the same electricity generating capacity from renewable energies. Look what is happening in the Baltic, North Sea and soon in the Irish Sea (despite the radioactivity). Offshore wind in Europe alone can provide the equivalent capacity of 140 nuclear reactors, not including floating platforms far offshore. And no waste problem (to keep people like you in PAID employment to pick on volunteer protesters). There is just no way that nuclear will ever compete with that.

About 'getting a life', try telling that to all dead cancer victims. Bit difficult now.

by Aidan Wed Mar 06, 2002 02:04

Look mate frankly I've figured out the way you work.... Ignore any comments you can't answer and ridcule and dismiss any that you can't deal with...

Protestors are paid you say, when the outcry runs againist you, you accuse them of not getting enough public support, since they pay their own way..... Ridcule and dismiss people who are so passionate about their beliefs they'll take time off work and cross a sea to condemn your work.... Thats a joke.

Someone stands up againist you, namely Ronald Hanas, you dismiss him..... Well according to the Sunday Times Hamas was a Scientist, not a pen pusher and being in charge of radioactive materials You can laugh at his statement, dismiss it. But you work for a company, who admit forging records about radioactive waste (only after being forced to admit it) and then announce that said forgerys where "no big deal" (as if plutonium was something kids should play with) And after that you expect us to believe your abuse of a scientist who condemns your safety record.

You talk about the dangerous of global warming. Then the safety record of sellafield. Scientists in the pay of petrolium companies dismiss facts about the dangers of global warming, or even it's existance for 25 years (because its not in their bosses best interests), and you expect us to believe a "anonymous" BNFL employee's statement about how safe nuclear waste is.

You dismiss Mark Tomas because "it's not worth taking about" What's not worth talking about and why? Because he proved trains carrying nuclear fuel stopped beside housing estates, and were utterly unsecure? Why exactly about that is not worth talking about?

You jeer us claiming we'd have the same problems with wind power as we do with nuclear. Well we don't. The worlds largest wind generating power station is about to be built of the coast of Wicklow. No complaints, only cheers from residents and enviromentalists...Incidently it's to be built on a sandbank on the sea you're poluting. Well alernative energy could be used, and could be practical if people weren't so sshortsighted investing in research, instead of the £2 billion on MOX.

You've managed to ignore the inconvient MOX question, That MOX was an outdated facility before it was built and it will involve the transport and storage of dangerous amounts of waste (and we've seen how effect you are at safety around waste, dismissing proof that you can't safetly transport it, and forging saftety checks, cause hey they're "minor offenses" and "not worth talking about")That it's okay. You talk about the overground storage of waste, till "the public come around." The same public who rejected the underground facility BNFL suggested?

It's Fucking radioactive waste mate, and the amount of times you've used "not worth talking about" and "minor offences" around the handling of waste is leaving me more scared than before you opened your mouth. This is dangerous materials and the cavalier attitude you display as a paid employee of BNFL terrifies me.

You talk of strigent safety checks, but BNFL have been found lacking. Lacking by independent journalism. BNFL is self regulating.... I like everyone who's in danger because of your plant can't help but wonder, what is going on that you haven't admitted... because hey everything that you've had to fess up to is "no big deal"

You blame the Minister of Defence and the French for every flaw and mistake thats been made, and any else is hyberbole...exactly when are you going to wake up and start admit that you're not inffaible...Or is BNFL next to the Pope?

Aidan

PS Sellafield isn't safe and the lies and half truths you pedal here isn't winning any supporters.

by Ronald Hanas - none Tue Jan 10, 2006 13:27 RonHanas at hotmail dot com 17 Main Street, Saint Bees, Cumbria, CA27 0DE 07745 850 309

I stumbled on the comments by SNIP by accident yesterday (9/1/6) and am somewhat amused by them. Perhaps you will indulge me in a detailed response given their inaccuracy. SNIP doesn’t make clear whether these statements are based on personal knowledge, or simply regurgitating what the papers, prompted by the BNFL publicity machine, reported. I suspect the latter.

Firstly I was not dismissed for gross misconduct; in fact BNFL’s whole argument during the tribunal was that I was a valued and effective employee who, in their eyes, was handling a very difficult role in a manner they considered to be exemplary, apart from a single lapse involving sending an abusive e-mail. BNFL would not have won the tribunal if dismissal had been proven. That I was not dismissed, either deliberately or constructively, was their main defence argument. With regard to “saving my job” SNIP displays nuclear ‘logic’. That an ‘outed’ anti-nuclear activist (SNIP’s implied description) could make the allegations that I have, under oath in public, in order to retain my employment, AT SELLAFIELD, amongst 10 000 people who might, just, be a little peeved about this defies response. Am I alone in my amazement at this take on reality? So SNIP you really ought to apologise for distorting the truth, don’t you think? I was however disciplined about two months prior to my resignation, which was on a point of principle regarding radiological safety, honesty and obstructive attitudes. With respect to the disciplinary hearing it was over an e-mail that accused my employers of ‘Merrily breaking every f*****g law in the book. The word C***, and quite a range of others were also used. Interestingly enough I was not dismissed for this but severely reprimanded. Also BNFL Instruments (BI), my actual employer, and BNFL Sellafield were later prosecuted for the matters referred to in the e-mail and fined £12 000 with £10 000 costs if memory serves me correctly after all this time.

As for being a ‘pen pusher’ what a wonderful Nuclear Industry’ insult, haven’t heard it for almost five years now. SNIP, I joined BNFL in June 1998 as a Radiometric Development Physicist. In laymen’s terms, a scientist employed on the development of radioactive material assay and measurement devices. So someone who needs to know, and understand, not only radiation dose rates and safety, but also the types of radiation produced, their interactions with matter and the technical and physical limitations of radiation detection devices. I was considered sufficiently able (by BI) to be sent, alone, to the BNFL Springfield’s plant, Dungeness and Hartlepool power stations to deal with serious design faults in instruments we supplied; ask BNFL. Prior to this I studied Applied Physics as a mature student and after graduating with a 2:1 worked as a technician within a university physics department for two years. While here I undertook research using radiotracer techniques. This involved sealing radioactive foils, which melt at 150 C, into 5 cm long silica glass tubes that melt at 1200 C. This was done using high vacuum procedures and a hand held oyx/acetylene torch within 4 cm of the radioactive material. Is this relevant? I would say so, it is hardly a task a ‘pen pusher ‘could undertake. I was also trained, in 1996, as a Radiation Protection Supervisor (RPS) by the National Radiological Protection Board, Didcot; the UK authority on this subject. This was a five day intensive course, including evening sessions, with a minimum pass mark of 70%. I passed easily. So, based on these undeniable facts, am I really someone who doesn’t understand the reality of radioactive hazards? My training record for Sellafield also shows that I attended a number of different RPS courses, and training as a Special Nuclear Materials Custodian (SNMC) about two weeks prior to my resignation. SNM are fissile materials capable of use in nuclear weapons production. An SNMC is responsible for the security and safety, including criticality safety, of these materials. True I left before taking the SNMC role on fully, but it is hardly training a ‘pen pusher’ requires is it? Also, for what other reason would BNFL give me such training if my role was not safety related? Yes there was a very large component of administrative work involved, but that is the case for all Sellafield-Windscale safety positions.

I also have a long pre-university history of working in sport parachuting, 4500 hours low level flying as crew on helicopters and a range of manual skilled industrial roles. So I guess you could say I have quite wide range of experience of manual, regulatory, research and some fairly hazardous employment. So a typical PP is perhaps a slightly inaccurate portrait?

Regards ‘Pen Pushers’ it was absolutely, in my opinion, one of the flaws in the BNFL system that people concentrated on the documents while overlooking the reality. I think you will find the regulators have also made this comment. Was I being accurate? Judge for yourselves; read the recent official BNG report into the 2005 Thorp leak, it says far more than I can. Particularly regarding SNIP’s assertion “Sellafield is safe!” Suppose it is if you enjoy the prospect of swimming in nitric acid and dissolved radioactive fuel. Furthermore if, as SNIP asserts, my role was’ PP, then what was I doing writing safe schemes of work and safety instructions. Obviously exceeding my authority and acting beyond my remit. Odd because no one above me in the ladder of authority ever challenged this? In fact they instructed me to undertake such tasks, this was acknowledged in the tribunal.

So the radioactive sources were so low in dose that you could sit on one for a year and suffer no harm? Odd, because some of those sources had contact dose rates of one Seivert per hour. I think anyone who knows about radiation hazard will be aware that 1.5 Seiverts can kill and 3 Seiverts is known as the LD30/50. The latter means that, from a test group receiving 3 Seiverts of radiation, 50% of those exposed would die within 30 days. Of the rest some would survive, some would die more slowly. So SNIP would you like a 1 Seivert source inserted up your arse for a year? The sources tampered with had a contact dose rate of 6 milli-Seivert per hour; that itself means they were each capable of delivering, in about 3 hours 20 minutes, the annual maximum whole body dose a classified radiation worker is allowed over a 2000 hour working year. If a hospital x-ray gave you a dose of radiation that large someone would be struck of the medical register and prosecuted. I have official dose rate records for the sources in question, and a full inventory of the sources referred to that support these claims; legitimately in my possession as they were obtained as tribunal evidence. If anyone would like copies to check out my assertions my address will be at the bottom of this ‘essay’.


The tribunal judgement (Case number 2501060/01 - Applicant Mr R S Hanas, Respondent BNFL Plc. Stocklund House, Carlisle, Cumbria: 8, 9, 10, 11 January 2002 and 19, 20, 21 August 2002. Chairman Mr J R Barton) made some interesting observations. It clearly states, on page 5 of the judgement, which throughout savages me, that BNFL Instruments were “in possession of 0.8 kg of Plutonium and almost 50 kg of Uranium, some enriched to weapons grade” (i.e. 97% U-235, so what was that doing on a ‘Civil’ nuclear site). Also that these were not registered as the law required. On page 7 of the judgement the tribunal finds that this was “A serious breach of regulatory requirements” and furthermore that BI had “A lack of appreciation of the implications that had caused”. Not bad when you consider that the BI web-site, at this time, stated “BNFL Instruments offers a close understanding of the concerns affecting plant management and the priorities governing regulatory compliance for the handling, treatment and disposal of radioactive and fissile materials”. A claim since removed from the, now renamed subsidiaries web-site; however I retain a copy. Seems their expertise didn’t extend to the most fundamental radioactive materials legislation in the UK, the Radioactive Substance Act 1993? Also a slightly different view to SNIP regarding a mere technicality both in the tribunal and the magistrate’s court? And, correct me if I am wrong, but since then haven’t we, the UK, invaded Iraq and caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths for similar, imaginary, technicalities. Also threatened Iran with military action (invasion) and, in the case of the US, threatened N Korea with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Do I really need to distort or exaggerate?


Loan to unauthorised recipients wrong? I think not. It is, partly, why you were prosecuted. If wrong can you please explain why BNFL/BI entered a guilty plea? Out of the goodness of their hearts? As for all persons on the Sellafield-Windscale sites being registered persons this is a lie. Selected employees are registered and trained to use radioactive sources. They Are a significant minority; how many? Ask BNFL. It doesn’t matter any way; the sources I controlled were illegally owned and were moved between sites and around the country and left in other peoples hands. How do I know? Who do you think drove the van; I plead guilty. SNIP displays, here, the attitudes that caused the problem notified by me to BNFL, law breaking caused by denial, a closed mind, ultimately - idiocy. BNFL were prosecuted successfully over these matters. They entered a plea of guilty. It is a matter of record reported in the press and described by the tribunal judgement as serious. How can I be distorting the facts over this?

Regards radioactive materials in a near by town, unless SNIP was directly involved in this he/she cannot comment. Yes there are radioactive materials legitimately stored at West Lakes; incidentally SNIP, are you aware that you have breached the Official Secrets Act with that comment? But the sources I referred to where stored in an industrial unit in Egremont, not at West Lakes. They couldn’t be taken onto the Sellafield site because the person who brought them hadn’t cleared this with the site authorities, those PP you so despise. So if you don’t know the facts don’t pretend you know the answer. Again this is an institutional characteristic of the nuclear industry, particularly Sellafield, and another reason I left.

Seals can’t be tampered with and materials moved. Oh really? Well let me put you right SNIP. At no time did BNFL challenge the removal and replacement of the seals in question. Unfortunately we were not using ‘frangible’ seals so those used could be taken of and replaced. I had predicted this would lead to tears. What BNFL argued was that “as the radioactive sources were in a ‘secondary containment’ removal of the outer sealed container did not constitute an invalidation of leak testing”. I would suggest that the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, and common sense, say otherwise. If you remove a layer of leak tested containment there can be no guarantee that the next layer is not leaking. Radioactive sources are, as you say, sealed in plastic, also metal in some cases. Why, then, does the law say leak test them? Simple. With age, use and exposure to radiation, both plastic and metal can develop microscopic cracks. These are sufficient to allow radioactive powders, contained in sources, to migrate to the surface. To atoms of radioactive material such microscopic cracks are the equivalent of motorways, and, depending on isotope, it takes very little radioactive material to cause harm to humans. So how did I deal with this? As SNIP says I had the leak tests redone. And it was this document that BNFL used to deny the seals or leak test had ever been invalidated. A document produced under my instructions, after the event. To use an analogy this is the equivalent of crashing a car without being insured then, a few days later, purchasing insurance for that car and insisting it covered the accident period. If you don’t believe me look in the tribunal documents held at Stocklund house, Carlisle. The leak test documents are present in this evidence. That the tribunal chose to ignore this fact is for them to explain, not me.

Radioactive water leaking into the ground, “A well known fact that has gone on for years”. Well that’s all right then! Mind you using the same logic, and at the risk of being controversial, couldn’t we excuse rape, murder and war this way? If the remediation procedures are so successful why is it, since I and others raised the profile of this matter, that BNFL have now admitted the pollution has reached the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer under the Sellafield site? Also spread outside the site boundary fence line. And that, far from the only isotope present being TC-99, there is Pu, Sr-90, Cs-137 and other isotopes present. I wonder if Iodine is there. Good for the thyroid so I hear. How many people are aware that this aquifer is used in local agriculture? Or that it is honeycombed over many miles by inter-linked mine workings that act as sumps and drains. No one understands in any detail the structure and hydrology of this subterranean region. So how can anyone say, as BNFL are claiming, that most of the isotopes present will never migrate? I know the Environment Agency have received a report on this and are trying to ‘persuade BNFL to make it public’. Perhaps a few requests under the freedom of information act would be in order. Let’s see some being made.

Forging of safety checks. Actually SNIP I was referring to matters within BI and the sources I was responsible for as a Radiation Protection Supervisor (or as you insist PP). But regarding MOX, since you raise it. Thank you for, once again, exhibiting to the public at large the amoral attitudes that contributed to my demise. If the Japanese said the pellets were safe why are they back at Sellafield? Where are the new Japanese orders for MOX? Isn’t it true that under irradiation in a nuclear reactor fuel pellets significantly alter their dimensions? This is why diameter is important, too large and when they swell they can burst the steel containment, too small and they vibrate; over time this erodes and may pierce the steel containment. What happens then? Well, correct me if I am wrong, but can’t the fuel, if the burst is sufficient, ignite causing fire in the reactor? That’s what I seem to remember being told? So it was just a little bit of harmless forging was it? SNIP it’s not the forging that worries me as much as your total inability to make the link between public mistrust and nuclear lies. Your mentality causes me total exasperation; in fact I intend to forward this response and your comments to BNG Sellafield for comment. If that causes me problems so be it.

Mark Thomas? To the best of my knowledge no-one even mentioned him at the tribunal. He’s obviously got to you sweetheart. Good old Mark. Think I will forward this to him if I can find an address. Do you mind?

Sorry I am getting bored now; think I have dealt with most of your inaccurate and offensive assertions. All I have to say in summary is this.

I resigned because I could no longer face the attitudes you exhibit. Also because, having seen the nuclear industry from inside, I could no longer face working in it, or becoming the person it was making me. “What does it profit a man if he gains the world, yet forsakes his very soul?” We all face choices in this world mine were made openly and with full knowledge of the probable personal consequences. I have never once, since resigning, retracted or apologised for anything done or said. In fact the tribunal, its verdict and the evidence given by BNFL against me, have strengthened my resolve. I remain, almost five years later, unemployed, unemployable and painted, deliberately, by the nuclear industry, as someone suffering from an ‘un-diagnosable mental illness’. If you doubt that statement call on me and see the local newspaper billboard kept in my home that proclaims this. It’s a very clever move, an un-diagnosable illness can’t be proven but, similarly, it can’t be disproved. Why, if I was a competent and exemplary employee, did the nuclear industry decide this problem existed only after I had resigned and made clear an intention to go public over my reasons? You decide.

As for SNIP’s assessment of my character. Well I have my faults, everyone who knows me considers me odd and hard to talk to, sometimes intimidating; but I have never hidden my face or avoided anyone who has challenged me over these matters, or for that matter even raised my voice to them since resigning. At job interviews and it does come up consistently, I have refused to apologise or retract any of the allegations made. Even if a gun were placed against my head and a retraction demanded the response would still be a refusal. Ask anyone who really knows me, not BNFL serfs. More importantly I continue to comment on nuclear industry matters openly, people know my address and who I am. Does this cause problems; obviously when 10 000 people feel you are putting their jobs at risk a few feel they have the right to react, but that’s life, others survive much worse. I have a genuine belief and those who talk to me know this. Far from gaining anything from this it causes me some hardship; no one with a brain enjoys long term, possibly permanent, unemployment or being portrayed as insane. Once again this doesn’t quite fit SNIP’s analysis of my motivation does it? Am I sorry for myself? No just very proud that I found the courage to stand up for my beliefs, and have never wavered from my choice. If, knowing what I know now, the situation arose again my choice would still be to take the same stand.

Finally, unlike SNIP I don’t hide behind a pseudonym or make comments on a web-site where the target may never even be aware of them. The British slang for a vasectomy is SNIP so, effectively, it means someone incomplete, someone with no balls. How fitting. Oh and if you must accuse others of selective reporting, distortion and outright lies SNIP, think twice. The old saying Pot calling the kettle seems appropriate here.

However SNIP is not all bad. So I am an Environmental Activist, that is, genuinely, the nicest thing anybody has called me since this whole s****y mess kicked off. Thank you SNIP. May the Lord Buddha watch over you and may you find enlightenment- preferably several hundred dozen reincarnations from now.

Ron Hanas
17 Main Street
Saint Bees
Cumbria
CA27 0DE
United Kingdom

by Anthony Tue Jan 10, 2006 14:24

A response from the original author who calls himself "Sellafield Employee" is highly unlikely seeing how he published the above (mis/dis)information close to four years ago but has not since bothered to answer any of the peer review from other Indymedia contributors.

by Ron Hanas Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:30

Probably not, but all I say is supported by evidence. Just thought I would put the facts in print.

by Ron Hanas - independent anti-nuclear campaigner Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:28

The UK Environment Agency has issued yet another enforcement notice following another radioactive leak. This time at one of the Sellafield storage ponds. In February 2006 pond 4 was overfilled with cooling water and radioactive water leaked from a hole in the wall.

The Environment Agency criticised British Nuclear Group saying "The volume of water lost was minute, but that the incident showed a 'disappointing' lack of control at the plant'. The Agency have now issued an enforcement notice to ensure no similar incidents occurr. Any failure to comply with the terms of this notice will be an offence.

The Environment Agency said: “Although there was no environmental harm, and any response and investigation were effective, we are extremely disappointed about the control, maintenance and other failings that led up to this event.” A BNG spokesman said: “There was no risk to anyone as a result of this event (as usual said the cynics), nor was there any environmental impact. The pond was overfilled as a result of some test work that was being carried out on the pond. The water didn't’ overflow the top of the pond but it did leak from an expansion joint in the wall".

RH would say that while the leak described above seems minor (in nuclear terms); what is of more concern is the repetition of the causes: attitudes and failure of systems and procedures. sound familiar? Isn't this the group of people most likely to be operating new UK nuclear power plants and long term storage of waste? When Brian Watson retired as head of Sellafield site fairly recently he left saying that he had "completed the major task of changing attitudes to safety and operational responsibility at all levels within BNG/BNFL Sellafield". Thank God he was successful in his task before collecting his well earned pension.

Pity with all the state of the art safety equipment available at Sellafield,self proclaimed world leaders in nuclear technology, that they didn't invest in a ballcock for the cistern.

Ron Hanas