The wings of a butterfly

2012 - A Roland Emmerich film

It sounds like the script for a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. An earthquake, followed by a tsunami and now an unprecedented nuclear crisis. Japan now has four reactors in serious trouble, three threatening to meltdown, one on fire and radiation at 20 times normal levels in Tokyo. After a third explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant workers battling the meltdown have had to be temporarily withdrawn.

Even the elements appear to have turned against the emergency operation. The wind, which had been blowing out to sea, changed direction and is now blowing the radiation towards Tokyo, a city of 28 million people. The strength of the wind is also stopping the authorities using helicopters to cool the reactors by dumping water from the air. Despite the continuing assurances you know how bad things have got when a Japanese 'John Kettley' has to play a crucial role.

The crisis in Japan, however, has put a stop to another nuclear explosion. Around the world governments had persuaded their populations that nuclear fuel was 'clean' energy and the best fix to address energy requirements in the context of falling oil reserves and climate change. New reactors have been given the go ahead around the world. Even Sweden, who had enforced a ban on building nuclear reactors for the last 30 years, had given the go ahead for new plants.

However, the footage coming out of Japan appears to have caused a rapid change of heart. A number of governments have acted swiftly to reassure their public. Germany has closed its seven oldest reactors and is discussing becoming nuclear free by 2020, Switzerland has suspended plans to build three more reactors and the Austrian Environment Minister, Nikolaus Berlakovich, has called for stress tests on all of Europe's 143 nuclear power stations to ensure they can withstand earthquakes.

Huhne

In Britain, Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, said the Government will not rush into making any judgements. He has asked Chief Nuclear Inspector Dr Mike Weightman to review the safety of UK plants and will wait for his findings before making any further decisions. In the meantime, Mr Huhne said that the Government would not be "complacent" and assured everyone that, "I believe we are running a very robust safety regime."

Huhne claimed safety was a "very high" priority for the industry and existing procedures were "extremely effective". He went on to stress "there are major differences between our situation and the Japanese situation, both in terms of luckily not being in an earthquake zone and not suffering the secondary consequences of the tsunami, there may be parallels in how robust our back-up systems can be - for example when it comes to the diesel generating electricity powering our cooling systems."

Tory MP Tim Yeo, Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, dismissed the discussions about safety as "hysteria". He has called for officials to do more to remind the public of the UK's "incredibly safe" nuclear record. Yeo's constituency, South Suffolk, is the site for the Sizewell B nuclear power station and he has a record of opposing wind turbines. He is Chairman of a company developing alkaline fuel cells.

Windscale was renamed Sellafield

Incredibly safe? As recently as December 2009 managers at Sellafield, don't mention Windscale, in Cumbria were fined for exposing staff to radioactive contamination. This followed a fine of £500,000 after 20 tonnes of radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe just three years before. In fact, since 2001, the Health and Safety Executive have reported 1343 incidents at UK power stations. Dungeness B, taken over by French nuclear giant EDF, was singled out for "non-compliance or inadequacy" in its safety arrangements.

While Germany has decided to close its oldest power stations, in the UK, EDF, yes the same one criticised for safety, announced they intend to extend the lives of two power stations by five years. The two reactors, in Hartlepool and Heysham have been running at a reduced capacity since safety issues were discovered with the boilers attached to the reactors back in 2007. Reassured?

Back in 2006 Alastair Darling, then Industry Secretary, announced the go ahead for eight new nuclear power stations to be operating by 2018. At the time the Conservatives argued that nuclear power should only be used as a 'last resort', while the Liberal Democrats, including Huhne, accused Labour of "surrendering" to the nuclear lobby. How things have changed. By August 2010, Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem MP and now cabinet minister, was assuring the House of Commons that the eight power stations were on schedule.

However, Huhne's statement was primarily concerned with funding not safety. According to the Independent, Mr Huhne said it was "clear" that MPs would vote in favour of new nuclear power stations providing there was no public subsidy involved. "I don't think you can determine whether a government is serious about energy policy merely in terms of whether it is prepared to write very large cheques. It has always been clear that our next generation of electricity power stations are going to be built by private investors with a framework put in place."

Chernobyl

The framework translates to 'inducements' to encourage investment - including a 'carbon floor price' - essentially taxing carbon fuels to make alternatives competitive. The inducements are necessary because there has been no private investment in building nuclear power stations since the Three Mile Island disaster in the USA back in 1979. What sort of return would investors be looking for on such a risky project? Hate to think what corners will be cut if profits decline.

The BBC reported that 'the nuclear industry insists existing plants are built to withstand "credible seismic scenarios". What are 'credible seismic scenarios'? According to the Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Electric who operate the nuclear plants currently threatened with meltdown, said in safety documents that 7.9 was the highest magnitude for which they tested in Fukushima. 7.9 was calculated to be the worst case scenario for 'simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the sea east of the plants' - the epicentre of the latest quake. The Sendai earthquake on 11 March measured 9. This is the fifth largest earthquake ever measured, but since 1923 their have been five earthquakes in Japan above 7.9. Worrying definition of "credible" isn't it?

Meanwhile, in the UK, the nuclear lobby are fighting back. Huhne is arguing, correctly, that the UK has completely different geological conditions to Japan. Engineering experts have told the BBC that the new British reactors will be 'designed using more advanced technology - specifically not requiring power sources such as generators to cool them after a emergency shutdown - making them "inherently safer".' I am sure they are also correct and I don't doubt that the Japanese engineers made similar claims about their own technology. But we should not be deceived into thinking the argument is about whether we can address the lessons of this latest disaster.

Steve Campbell, from Greenpeace, got to the heart of the matter when he said, "Japan's nuclear plants were built with the latest technology, specifically to withstand natural disasters, yet we still face potential meltdown," Why? The Japanese were confident they had considered all the risks but a series of events led to unpredictable and extreme outcomes. The earthquakes, tsunami, no doubt 'human error' and eventually even the wind changing direction are all playing a part in this story.

It may be stating the obvious, we can reduce but never remove risk entirely. Isn't it ironic that in a society that is wrapping its population in health and safety legislation our politicians can accept the risks of nuclear power so easily? Yet the consequences for getting it wrong, as we see in the footage from Japan, threatens millions. 25 years after the disaster in Chernobyl - it is still the most polluted place on the earth.

What is the appropriate risk when so much is at stake?  In such an unpredictable world, the only predictable thing is that this won't be the last disaster. Can we afford to keep gambling?

Ah, don't you just love Spring, look at that beautiful butterfly flapping its wings...

BMA - It's time to toughen up!

"World-class health care for all, publicly funded, free, centred on patients, not profit. So yes to health reforms. But no – always no – to the privatisation of health." Following Clegg's declaration at the Liberal Democrat conference - it sounds like the battle to 'save the NHS' is over. He promised not to let the "profit motive drive a coach and horses through the NHS."

Despite holding the conference in Clegg's constituency hometown of Sheffield, a £2 million police operation was required to keep 5000 protesters at bay, so the Deputy Prime Minister may have considered that such statements were conducive to self-preservation. However, rather than concerns for personal safety, his assertion came as a result of opposition to the reforms from the conference floor. This action might offer a faint glimmer of hope for the NHS and the future health of the Liberal Democrat party.

Congratulations must go to Lib Dem membership for, in effect, throwing out a motion supporting the NHS reforms and voting instead for amendments that were very critical of the Tory proposals. The amendments stated that the Lib Dems did not support the 'damaging and unjustified market-based approach that is proposed.' It also noted, 'Conference regrets that some of the proposed reforms have never been Liberal Democrat policy, did not feature in our manifesto or in the agreed Coalition Programme'.

Although the amendments were supported by Baroness Shirley Williams and ex MP Evan Harris, this was a grass roots rebellion and received almost unanimous support from the floor. However, faced with certain defeat, Clegg had already agreed to 'accept' the amendments at a breakfast meeting with Williams. The reversal exposes a growing divide between local activists and senior parliamentary members. Despite the possible repercussions for Tory health reforms I think it was interesting to see how gleefully the Daily Mail reported the 'bloody nose' for Clegg. As the newspaper of the Conservative Party foot soldiers it sounds like Lib Dem activists are not the only ones uncomfortable with the coalition arrangement. 

So is it all falling apart? Can we stop panicking and call off the marches? The Guardian reported that Clegg promised Baroness Williams to take 'critical messages' back to the PM. Clegg will hold talks Cameron this week. One Lib Dem cabinet member, refusing to be named, told the Guardian: "I thought we had committed ourselves to give the NHS more money and to leave it alone. I like Lansley, but I do not know why we are doing this." Even Cameron has admitted that the Tories are not getting their message across. 

Clegg told his party "All of us in government are listening and we take these concerns seriously" but it must be difficult to hear anything for all the noise. On Friday the Daily Mail argued, 'what worries this paper is that his revolutionary reforms, barely mentioned during the election, are being rammed through Parliament with only minimal consultation' while even the Telegraph has expressed concern that the reforms risk lowering standards of patient care. The general view of the Tory press seems to be reform rather than transform.

With criticism coming from all sides and commentators beginning to suggest that NHS reform might be Cameron's 'Poll Tax', it might be time for some rethinking. One Tory minister told the Daily Mail: 'We are digging a man trap for ourselves for no good reason. Some of us can see it and are determined to avoid it at all costs.'  

Lansley opens first GP off-licence

Speaking on BBC1's Politics Show yesterday, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, suggested that the Tories might be ready for a tactical retreat." As you put a Bill through Parliament you look carefully at how the legislation delivers in the context of the reforms that we have set out. We have already made changes, we are not sitting there going: 'Oh, we know the answers and nothing must change'." Lansley said that if the Government could "clarify and amend in order to reassure people" then it would do so.

"Amend to reassure" doesn't sound like much of retreat. Although Lansley, himself, must be under a lot of pressure. Cameron is already complaining that the arguments for reform are not being made effectively and Lansley is now under even more pressure with the BMA's call for him to withdraw the Health Bill. However, the vote may be embarrassing to Lansley but what pressure are the BMA willing to exert upon the Government?

Strike action would inevitably affect patient care and lead to a loss of public support. A refusal to comply with the reforms? As we have seen, the GP consortia are being formed despite their opposition because there really isn't any choice. It would be utterly irresponsible for the structures not to be put in place. Finally, and probably most importantly, the respect that people have for doctors is also the reason for their political weakness. These are professionals committed to their work, thus, essentially conservative. It is a sign of how much the profession has been provoked that they have taken this public action but a frontal assault on the Government is highly unlikely. Unfortunately strong words will not be enough.

So what is the chance of a retreat? For all the efforts of the Lib Dem activists, the power still lies in the hands of the parliamentary party. The grassroots clearly hope to see their MPs vote against the NHS reforms unless their are some radical changes to the proposals but how likely is that? Clegg vowed to look at the amendments "in detail" and told the party that he was "Yes to reform of the NHS - but no to the privatisation of the NHS."

What does that mean? I suspect not much, perhaps a few cosmetic changes. Despite unease amongst the Tories, Clegg still holds the key. During the recent meeting I attended with Clegg, there were a couple of occasions where the veneer of charm slipped and what was revealed was a pretty uncompromising man and rather a bully. For all his pleas of "I'm a human being too", here was someone quite happy to play dirty and that was in a Q&A. Clegg said nothing to suggest he has any doubts about the NHS reforms. Unlike student fees - NHS reform was not a price of the Coalition.

Clegg wants these reforms and has the will to see them through. Without a Lib Dem rebellion the reforms will be passed and, despite the wishes of the party, Clegg seems, at the moment, to have the majority of his MPs under control. Who will rock the boat before the referendum? Anybody wishing to challenge Clegg's authority would be best served by the NHS reforms becoming law and losing the referendum. That would leave the path clear for a leadership challenge.

Perhaps the best insight into his plans came during the speech to conference. He argued that the Lib Dems had to forget the idea of winning over disenchanted Labour voters, a traditionally fertile ground, and focus instead on attracting votes from Middle England. The message was pretty stark. The ship is changing course. Like a drill sergeant, he also warned the party activists to "toughen up". 'Or ship out' may have been left unsaid, but for many in the hall, I think that was the message.


So what is the most likely outcome? Unless the BMA heed Clegg's advice and "toughen up" it looks like the mostly likely outcome will be a challenge to Clegg's leadership. Unfortunately, the privatisation of the NHS and losing the voting reform referendum will be a very high price to pay.



 Thank goodness that's done, time for a 'responsible' pint of wine.