CONTROVERSES ENER...ETHIQUES
et NUCLEAIRES
ARMEMENT NUCLEAIRE

US nukes deployed in Britain
1) US nukes deployed in Britain in 1980s 'posed safety threat'
2) Greenham nuclear risk for millions uncovered
Source Réseau Sortir du nucléaire - New Scientist (http://www.forbes.com, juillet 2007)

    PARIS (Thomson Financial) - Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles deployed at a US base in Britain in the 1980s could have exposed millions of people to plutonium inhalation if an accident occurred, according to British weekly New Scientist.
1) US nukes deployed in Britain in 1980s 'posed safety threat'

     A warning from the British government's Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE) also said the base was the worst possible site for the missiles, according to top-secret documents that New Scientist says were released to it by the Ministry of Defence under freedom of information laws.
     Between 1983 and 1991, the United States stationed 96 cruise missiles at Greenham Common, in the southeastern county of Berkshire, to help offset a Soviet buildup in medium-range nuclear missiles.
     The deployment sparked the longest protest in Britain against nuclear weapons, including a women's encampment that stayed for 19 years, ending long after the base was closed.
     In reports in 1980, AWRE scientists calculated the 'plutonium dispersion hazard' if a stored warhead caught fire or accidentally exploded.
     Of the 11 bases in England being considered for the missiles, Greenham Common was 'the worst site which has been examined,' as it was closest to large population centres.
     "If one warhead were to detonate, it is possible that the other seven warheads in the storage cell could be engulfed in the fire which is virtually certain to ensue from the rupture of the missiles fuel tanks," they said.
     If so, 10 million people across southern England, including the population of London, could be exposed to an inhalation hazard' from plutonium, one of the most toxic substances in the world.
     In two assessments, though, AWRE deemed the risk was "acceptable", the New Scientist report, carried in next Saturday's issue, says.
     New Scientist quoted the defence ministry as saying, "There has never been an accident involving nuclear weapons in the UK that has put the public at risk. The MoD [ministry of defence] maintains the highest standards of safety and security during the storage or transport of nuclear weapons."

2) Greenham nuclear risk for millions uncovered
· MoD papers reveal 1980s threat to 10m in south-east 
· Reports obtained under anti-secrecy legislation 
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday July 12, 2007
The Guardian

     Nuclear missiles stationed at the former RAF base at Greenham Common in Berkshire put 10 million people at risk from radioactive contamination, according to documents released by the Ministry of Defence. The reports include scientific studies by government researchers at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston which warned there was a "credible" danger of a warhead accidentally catching fire or exploding, engulfing others in flames and sending a plume of radioactive plutonium into the atmosphere.

      One study among the reports investigated how the material was likely to disperse, revealing that the population of London was at risk of an "inhalation hazard" from any radioactive release.
     Between 1983 and 1991, the US military stored 96 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles at the airfield, which became home to the Greenham Common women's peace camp, one of the longest anti-nuclear protests in history. The base was returned to civilian use in 1993 following the end of the cold war.
     The previously secret reports, obtained by New Scientist magazine under the Freedom of Information Act, state that the MoD regarded the risk to the population as "acceptable", despite the misgivings of its own experts. One report, dated February 11 1980, examined the risk of a "plutonium radiation hazard" from a cruise missile fire. It found that a fire in a single silo, fed by fuel from the missiles, could release plutonium from eight warheads, creating a radioactive cloud that would be blown across much of the south-east of England. It concluded that Greenham Common, near Newbury, was the worst of 11 sites under consideration to house the missiles, because of its proximity to urban centres.
     A second report was produced on December 2 1980, after information from the US confirmed the warheads could explode accidentally, and after the decision had been made to station the missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth in Cambridgeshire. It said: "If one warhead were to detonate it is possible that the other seven warheads in the storage cell could be engulfed in the fire which is virtually certain to ensue from the rupture of the missiles' fuel tanks."
     A response from the MoD, published in New Scientist today, did not "confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place at any particular time", adding: "There has never been an accident involving nuclear weapons in the UK that has put the public at risk. The MoD maintains the highest standards of safety and security during the storage or transport of nuclear weapons."
     In 2001, the Atomic Weapons Establishment exceeded management targets for "abnormal events", including accidents involving nuclear material at Aldermaston and the neighbouring Burghfield bomb assembly plant. The company registered 826 accidents, including cuts, breaches of safety procedures and the failure of breathing apparatus worn by an employee handling radioactive material.

 
 
 
 
 

Greenham Common
Multimedia guide to the Greenham protests
Special report
The military
tf.TFN-Europe_newsdesk@thomson.com