Peak Oil: still a way off?

George Monbiot writes of a new report just out talks of an oil boom: "The facts have changed, now we must change too. For the past 10 years an unlikely coalition of geologists, oil drillers, bankers, military strategists and environmentalists has been warning that peak oil – the decline of global supplies – is just around the corner." 

As Monbiot writes..."There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground". Read full article here.  However not all see it this way. Richard Heinberg who spoke in Stroud to the District Council and Transition Network has this view - see here. He says: "And so a spurt of new production from “tight” shale deposits now serves as a pretext to declare victory. The peaksters should have seen it coming, after all: high oil prices do indeed trigger increases in reserves and production from lower-quality resources. Indeed, some of the better analysts did see it coming. I recall Jeremy Gilbert, the former BP chief petroleum engineer, speaking about the potential of new production technology at an Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference a couple of years ago."

Update - see also Transition view: http://transitionculture.org/2012/07/04/transition-reflections-on-george-monbiots-announcement-that-we-were-wrong-on-peak-oil/

2,700 will die from being fuel poor

Almost 3,000 people in England and Wales will die this winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes - more than the number killed in traffic accidents each year (see The Guardian here). Yesterday I blogged on fuel poverty - today again I want to highlight this issue, but first a mention of the Friends of the Earth campaign - they are trying to stop the big energy companies taking us for a ride - see here to sign petition and see their fun video - of course fuel prices are also high due to Peak Oil (see Ecologist article here) but that is another story...

Earlier this week the Hills Fuel Poverty Review, commissioned by the government, found that if just 10% of UK winter deaths are caused by fuel poverty (a conservative estimate) 2,700 people will perish as a direct result of being fuel poor. The report clearly indicates that, however we define fuel poverty or formulate remedial policies, the scale of the problem is vast and growing - with low-income households spending over £1 billion more on their energy needs than more affluent households.

Responding to publication of the Interim Report, Caroline Lucas MP (Green Co- chair of All-Party Parliamentary Fuel Poverty & Energy Efficiency Group), said earlier: "This report is yet more proof that low-income households are being completely ripped off on their energy bills. It is deeply unfair that those who can least afford it are expected to spend an even higher proportion of their income on energy than the average household just to achieve this basic right. If the Government is to deliver social justice alongside policies to facilitate the shift to a low carbon future, it desperately needs to wake up to the need for radical improvements in the UK's housing standards - and not ask poorer consumers to pay for it through their energy bills."

There are 27,000 extra deaths in the UK each winter compared to other times of year, according to figures from the Office of National Statistics. The report found most of this was due to cold weather. That figure is one of the highest in Europe and worse than Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway and France.  Click read more to see more.

Peak oil: why did Labour deny the facts?

Following a long battle using Freedom of Information it has been confirmed that the government was warned in no uncertain terms by its own civil servants two years ago that there could be "significant negative economic consequences" to the UK posed by near-term "peak oil" energy shortages. The response was the Wicks review into energy security which effectively dismissed peak oil as alarmist and irrelevant. See Guardian here and George Monbiot here - although no one seems at the moment to be able to answer why Labour denied their own official reports. More importantly it means the government must act with all haste to address the situation. As the suppressed report said peak oil is likely to have significant global consequences including civil unrest. How many more reports does our Government need to see before it acts?

Community Energy solutions?

At our recent Green Party AGM in Stroud over 60 people gathered to hear a talk by Roger Uttley about the proposals for Community energy supplies in Bisley. You can see more about it on their website here.

Photos: from the evening

Roger started with a look at our energy supplies - and one slide had Ofgem's conclusions that "Britain faces unprecedented challenges to it's energy security." Ofgem are a notoriously 'conservative' organisation and so if they are saying this it must be serious. One of Roger's slides (see left) shows the investment time scales needed to meet the energy gap - well in some areas we are stuffed - not his words - and in others we have to pull all the stops out.

One approach by the government is Smart meters but the fear is that this could mean that as energy becomes more expensive to import the price goes up at key times - will some families even be able to afford to use it at key times like after work?

Anyway to cut this report on Roger's talk right down, he then looked at what might be possible and realistic for the Parish in terms of wind, PV, hydro etc. It was an inspiring talk that this taster does nothing to convey!

Roger also shared the consultation process that Bisley with Lypiatt Parish Council, in partnership with Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council, has started to research options for generating electricity locally to reduce the community's dependence on the National Grid.

I think what is most frustrating is that so few people seem to understand the urgency of this matter - the facts are there yet the government seems incapable of acting - Greens recently launched a new campaign on this - see here. It has had some coverage but not enough! See also my recent blog on the need to move away from oil here and rocketing food prices here.

Anyway locally it is great that there is interest in exploring some of these ideas - I'm optimistic that something will come from these discussions.

Stroud Potato Day film

The film-maker who was due to film on the day sadly had to cancel at the last minute, so I ended up trying to film at the same time as organise the day - it is at least a taster of the day. Double click to open in Youtube.

Thank you to all who have made comments already on the film. Here's one just in from a Transition group in another town: "What a great event and a lovely film of the day - not too long and thankfully upbeat for a change. Forwarding it to our Food group as inspiration."

Motoring costs down 14% since 1997 but we must move away from oil

The Independent's article: "An opportunity to kick our fossil-fuel addiction" makes the case yet again for moving away from oil - and the 'green wise' online business site is now talking about rationing within the decade - see here. I know I keep covering this topic but couldn't resist another quick ramble - or should that be rant??

Before going on to more of that, here are two events sponsored by the Green party:

• Fri Feb 25th - Is a zero carbon Britain feasible? (Introduced by Peter Haper from the Centre of Alternative Technology)
• Fri March 25th - Will there be a World food crisis? (Introduced by the Campaigns director, World Development Movement)

Both meetings are at Star Anise Arts Cafe 7.30-9.30pm. It is an opportunity to discuss these important issues both in plenary and small groups. The Coffee House discussions are sponsored by the Green Party but open to people of all political persuasions (and none).

So back to oil - well oil is again over $100. Hamish McRae writing this week in The Independent warns: "Let's get real, cheap oil is never coming back...Virtually all the increased demand for energy, some 93 per cent of it, will come from outside the developed world. We in the present rich world will increase energy needs a little over the next 10 years but by 2030 our consumption will be falling. By contrast, energy demand from the emerging countries will rise by more than two-thirds and still be rising fast."

In the papers I have read various comments that fuel prices seem to cost twice as much as they did a decade ago. However government figures show that the real cost of motoring has decreased by 14% since 1997!! A fuel stabiliser is an inadequate short-term dressing on a gaping wound: we can’t go on expecting fuel prices to remain low forever. Prices are bound to increase.

Nevertheless we are hitting £1.30 a litre so it is no wonder we are seeing concerns. Hauliers have said they were already planning for a possible blockade in protest at prices - and like many I got an email suggesting I join a campaign for people, for the rest of this year, not to purchase any petrol from the two biggest oil companies i.e. ESSO and BP. The reasoning goes that if they are not selling any petrol, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.

It is certainly true that the oil companies are still, largely making obscene profits (see here). They also don't seem to have any plans to take climate change seriously as all they ever do is plan for evermore drilling - Oil company Northern Petroleum has recently confirmed that it has been successful in drilling for oil in a corner of ancient woodland on the South Downs in West Sussex and says the site has the potential to yield between 35m and 61m barrels of oil - see here. But let's not forget that the evidence is pointing to the fact that we have reached 'peak oil' - from now on it is more scarce and harder and more expensive to get out of the ground.

So is the world on the brink of another oil shock?

Well the International Energy Agency (IEA), which speaks for the big industrialised consumers in the West, has issued a warning. After sliding during the financial crisis, oil prices have shot up. This does not bode well. All the indications are that prices will rise one way or the other.

So surely this is an opportunity? Let's scrap all the absurd fossil-fuel subsidies and look for cleaner sources of power. Britain could be at the forefront of this new energy sector and tackle the threat of climate change.

Jonathan Porritt used the platform provided by the Burntwood Lecture 2010 to launch a scathing criticism of the growth fetish of society and slammed government, NGOs and professional bodies for their response to the looming environmental crisis. I think I have already pointed to that talk on this blog. He attacked NGO’s historic piecemeal approach to small scale environmental problems whilst ignoring the rampant destruction the biosphere by the capitalist economic system, saying “for every short term win there is a pattern of wider attrition of the environment.” He accused NGOs of existing in a “holding reality”, revelling in small victories but failing to issue a long overdue planetary warning. Well said!
Local Authority Peak Oil reports

Stroud District Council was one of the first Council's to entertain Peak Oil - Richard Heinberg spoke to the Cabinet - see here. However progress has been dismally slow. In contrast I read about Warwickshire County Council who have formed the Warwickshire Climate Change Partnership, which is made up of a range of partners from the public and private sectors. They have teamed up with a group of MSc students from Warwickshire Business School who have written a report on the influence of UK energy security and peak oil issues and associated higher price scenarios on the delivery of services for the many and various customers of the council. See here.

In terms of looking at what is possible it is worth seeing Green councillor Andrew Cooper on Youtube at:
http://greeningkirklees.blogspot.com/2011/01/speech-at-renewable-energy-in-public.html

Food prices rocketing

I've just watched the film The Battle of Seattle on iPlayer after a meeting was cancelled this evening. Made in 2007 the film depicts the historic protest in 1999 in Seattle, where thousands of activists protest the World Trade Organisation conference - worth a watch as it shows those activists trying to get a non-violent message over about the damage the WTO does.

And talking of non-violent - interestingly Monbiot just wrote an article today in The Guardian regarding the recent revelations about police infiltration into environmental groups - he writes: "I searched all the literature I could lay hands on, and couldn’t find a single proven instance of a planned attempt in the UK to harm people in the cause of defending the environment. (That’s in sharp contrast to animal rights campaigning, where there has been plenty of violence). No one has yet produced a factual challenge to that conclusion. Yet every year a shadowy body spends most of its £5m budget on countering a non-existent threat that officers call eco-terrorism."

But that wasn't what I was going to write about....it was two years ago the world faced a food crisis - over 30 countries saw food related riots (see blog at the time here). Very worryingly it looks like we could be heading for similar troubles...the UN has just said that global food prices hit a record high last month. The developing world, as always, will be hit very much harder - but it will of course lead to a jump in food prices in this country - made worse by the recent VAT rise.

Food security is a big issue - one that the coming Stroud Potato Day on 5th February wants to highlight - see here. Food price rises are complex - oil price rising as fossil fuel production peaks, the changing climate, biofuel cultivation replacing food crops, demand increases from countries like China and India and the role of food commodity derivatives in destabilising and driving up food prices. See WDM report about how banking speculation causes the food crisis here.

OK we probably wont get much of that message over on Potato Day but already I've had all sorts of conversations with people in connection with the day. We need more 'Dig for Victory' campaigns - see previous blog here. We could significantly reduced the amount of food imported if we could really make this revolution of growing more food locally happen.

Anyway The Independent covered the price rises - see here. They note: "Global food prices have risen for the sixth month in succession. Wheat has almost doubled since June, sugar is at a 30-year high, and pork is up by a quarter since the beginning of 2010. The trends have already affected the UK where the jump in food prices in November was the highest since 1976. Meat and poultry were up 1 per cent and fruit by 7.5 per cent in one month."

The British Retail Consortium show that food prices are continuing to rise at double the pace of wages. Annual food inflation in December was 4 per cent compared to a rise of 2 per cent in incomes last year. This means a family spending £100 a week on food a year ago will have to find an extra £208 a year to put meals on the table. Petrol prices are also running around 20 per cent higher than a year ago, while rail fares have also increased . See more here re price rises.

Countries that are poor and produce relatively little of their own food are most vulnerable to the food price shock – Bangladesh, Morocco and Nigeria top the "at risk" list, according to research by Nomura economists, who also identify growing shortages of water as a critical factor restraining any growth in agricultural productivity.

'When Will the Food Bubble Burst?' asks Lester R. Brown - see article here - he writes: "Over the last few decades we have created a food production bubble -- one based on environmental trends that cannot be sustained, including overpumping aquifers, overplowing land, and overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. If we cannot reverse these trends, economic decline is inevitable. No civilization has survived the ongoing destruction of its natural support systems. Nor will ours....

"The danger signs are everywhere. In the summer of 2010, record high temperatures scorched Moscow from late June through mid-August. Western Russia was so hot and dry in early August that 300 to 400 new fires were starting every day. Over 56,000 people died in the extreme heat. Russia’s 140 million people were in shock, traumatized by what was happening to them and their country. The record heat shrank Russia’s grain harvest from roughly 100 million tons to 60 million tons. This 40-percent drop and the associated grain export ban helped drive world wheat prices up 60 percent in two months, raising bread prices worldwide."

A bleak picture. Is it now our chance to redefine security? Can we find a better way? Sadly the rich nations are still using the WTO to target developing countries - while the WTO at least acknowledge the food crisis, they are still part of the problem - see WDM's view on the November talks - and are not part of creating a fairer world for all. But hey time for bed and this was a bit of a waffle...

No electrics in Bread Street for 20 hours

At 6pm this evening there was much relief here in Bread Street when the electrics came back on after 20 hours without the stuff - some 38 houses had lost it for that time - although many others across the County were also without electricity for periods. A lot of the stuff in our freezer has sadly gone very soft....

Photo: Had to boil in my fancy camping stove to make coffee this morning!

The reason for the power cut was a line down near the farm - indeed fire engines and police last night closed the road completely as live cables straddled the road.

It seems increasingly likely that power cuts will feature more often in the coming years - there have been repeated warnings yet virtually no actions from Government (see for example BBC reports in 2005 and 2008). We have failed to develop our energy supplies to replace the nuclear dinosaurs and there are fears of huge electricity and gas price rises as Britain is held to ransom by such foreign energy producers as Russia - last year the Government's Low Carbon Transition Plan said we could expect a gap of 3,000 megawatt hours a year could mean an hour-long power cut for 16million people simultaneously on a winter evening. This year Ofgem warned about the lack of energy security - see here. Many others have done the same - see for example my blog re the US military warning back in April.

However the Government is still failing to recognise Peak Oil. Interestingly just this last week or so, the Lloyd's insurance market and the highly regarded Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, says Britain needs to be ready for "peak oil" and disrupted energy supplies at a time of soaring fuel demand in China and India, constraints on production caused by the BP oil spill and political moves to cut CO2 to halt global warming. The report says the world is heading for a global oil supply crunch and high prices owing to insufficient investment in oil production plus a rebound in global demand following recession. See Guardian here.

We need to act.

Peak Oil: more evidence of the need to act

The Guardian reports that the US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact. This report comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel - we also saw Sir Richard Branson and other business leaders warn this year that we face an energy crunch in 5 years.

Pic: 'Peek' Oil from local artist Russ for this blog

This is an issue that I repeatedly have raised at the District Council - see for example recently here and here and in my presentation to Cabinet here - we need to reduce our fossil fuel consumption - tinkering is not enough - we need radical measures. There are many opportunities. If the Council borrowed money to put renewables (like solar power) on Council properties, we could pay back the loan with money saved from fuel costs. Then within say eight to ten years the Council would be making money. Such moves make economic and environmental sense, we just need the political will to make it happen.

Stroud District Council is more aware than most and 'Peak Oil' is now entered the language of reports - but we still need to do much more....

Another interesting story was that it took a 22 year old student to uncover fraud around peak oil. The Ecologist covered the story here - they note how Lionel Badal was working on his undergraduate dissertation when he suddenly found himself privy to information that he knew must be made public. The body on which the UK and others rely heavily to make that assessment is the International Energy Agency (IEA)- their reports have been reiterating the conclusion that peak oil was not a problem. Behind the scenes however, it is now clear that senior staff thought otherwise. How can they play at such games when so much is at stake?

Peak Oil, the impossible hamster and abiotics!

A couple of weeks or so ago the District Council organised a Policy Seminar for councillors on energy - it was most thought-provoking although sadly too few councillors present - not even one representing the Labour group. I didn't agree with all - indeed one of the speakers was a planner for the nuclear industry. Anyway here is just a touch on a couple of issues that have led to discussion afterwards...

Photo: Lone ash near top of Ash Lane last week

One of the areas the seminar spent some time on was Peak Oil - a topic familiar to this blog (see recent post here) - I therefore wont go over it again in this post - the seminar certainly raised some key issues which we need to address urgently - anyway since the meeting there has been some interesting discussion amongst councillors about the issue - not all - indeed one email from a councillor in my mailbox written in capitals told me to stop including them in the discussion!

Abiotic theory

Anyway an article by Peter Odell was circulated by one councillor - it was an interesting addition to the debate – he is apparently a well known 'peak oil denier' but even he admits cheap oil is a finite resource. One area that he particularly has written about is the abiotic theory of oil formation:

An alternative theory of oil and gas futures is possible. This arises from the concept of oil and gas as renewable resources based on the “Russian-Ukrainian” theory of the origins of hydrocarbons. Let me explain this, based on the theory and practice developed by Dr. J.F. Kenny of the Gas Resources Corporation in Houston, US.

According to “standard” theory, oil is derived from biological material, i.e. from ancient fossilised organic materials. By contrast, the theory of abiogenic (abyssal, abiotic) petroleum holds that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth. This theory is derived from an extensive body of scientific knowledge covering the subjects of the chemical genesis of hydrocarbon molecules, the dynamical processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum, and on the location of economically viable abiogenic petroleum. It is based not only upon extensive geological observations, but also upon rigorous and analytical physical reasoning. Much of the theory has developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics. Accordingly, the theory has steadfastly emerged as a central tenet in which the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics. With the exception of methane, petroleum has no intrinsic association with biological material. Peter Odell

My understanding is that abiotic (non biological) hydrocarbons exist, but mainly in the form of some methane and that there is very little evidence that more complex hydrocarbons can be cooked up deep in the earth. There is no evidence that abiotic hydrocarbons exist in sufficient quantity for commercial exploitation.

Indeed there is lots and lots of well understood science that solidly links oil and gas deposits with biotic formation (ie. formed from living matter buried by geological processes). The oil producing reservoirs in the North Sea and around the world are depleting and are not being refilled from deep below ground at any measurable rate - certainly not at a rate that is significant in terms of the volume of oil we are extracting. See Richard Heinberg (a peak oiler) - and his view on this here: www.energybulletin.net/node/2423

Underground Coal Gassification

At the Policy Seminar there was a comment from one member that the US is now getting 60% of it's gas from Underground Coal Gassification. I have since checked this with a number of people and circulated this comment to the members list - "it seems UCG exists currently only in a few trial plants. The US has upgraded its gas reserves based on this to include gas from coal and oil shales. However this is just another non conventional hydrocarbon source and 1) takes significantly more energy to produce the gas than conventional methods, 2) is much more expensive than conventional methods and 3) is very unlikely to ever achieve the flow rates required to meet current levels of gas demand."

Growth and fossil fuels

It is in some ways a pity we don't have time to talk more between Members - it is interesting to learn from the many different experiences - another comment made to the discussion was about accepting that we need to decouple GDP growth from fossil fuel usage. Of course as a Green I don't consider this goes far enough...we must decouple the economy from growth altogether!

At this point it would be right to ask if you seen the Impossible Hampster yet? If not go to:
www.impossiblehamster.org

And on a more serious note the new NEF report: Growth Isn't Possible:
www.neweconomics.org/publications/growth-isnt-possible

Weather is not climate

OK there is still snow and more coming (minus 7.5C on my shed thermometer) - but the cold spell looks set to break - many of us are looking forward to stuff getting back to more normality - however many parts of the northern hemisphere are considerably warmer than usual at the moment. Alaska and much of northern Canada are 5C to 10C warmer than expected - still pretty cold with the air a biting –30C (–22F).

Photos: more local shots

It has also be shown that the first decade of the twenty-first century was the hottest since record keeping began in 1880. The year 2005 was the hottest on record, while 2007 and 2009 tied for second hottest. In fact, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past decade.

Of course Ruscombe Green blog readers will know that Britain's cold snap does not prove climate science wrong - but too many times I've heard folk question it - as Leo Hickman and George Monbiot write in their article: "Climate sceptics are failing to understand the most basic meteorology - that weather is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends."

The other day 40 odd folk went to the Stroud Coffee House discussion despite snow - see report here - Copenhagen was depressing - you can see my previous blog here - existing greenhouse gas reduction pledges will not halt emissions growth until 2040, 35 years after the 2015 target called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By 2020 global emissions from all sources would be some 55 billion tonnes, up from around 46 billion tonnes today.

We are seeing predictions made years ago by climate scientists beginning to come true. Here is what Chris Johnson writes in his excellent The Great Turning Times of this and why many are still finding it difficult to grasp climate change: Annual UK rainfall has increased and heavy rainfall events, where it pours for many days at a time, have become twice as common in Northern England since the 1960's, and four times as common in Scotland. Australia, California and many Mediterranean countries are becoming so dry that wildfires are reaching new levels of intensity. In Africa, reduced rainfall is causing crop failures and increased conflict. The Arctic sea ice is melting, and even more rapidly than forecast by the computer models used for the last IPCC report. Worldwide, weather related disasters have been on the increase decade by decade, with, on average, 300 events recorded every year in the 1980's, 480 every year in the 1990's and 620 events a year over the last decade.

Pic: from Earth Policy Institute - see below

This list could go on and a recent survey of 24,071 people in 23 countries showed that 64% of those polled now recognise climate change as a serious problem. However, not everyone appears so convinced. You may encounter the view that climate change is some kind of hoax, or that if it is happening, the causes are unrelated to human activity. As well as looking at how people become inspired to tackle an issue, we also need to understand resistance and learn how to work with this. Part of this unwillingness to view climate change as a problem is linked to a very deliberate campaign by fossil fuel industry funded PR firms to undermine the science, drawing on their experience of similar well funded campaigns to cast doubt on the dangers of tobacco, asbestos and ozone depleting chemicals. I strongly recommend reading the excellent blog by Dr Jeff Masters where he describes these campaigns in detail. However I don't think we can put all climate change denial down to misinformation. We also need to understand why these campaigns fall on willing ears. It is here that I value what I've learnt from working in the addictions field.

Working with resistance

When we're making a significant change, there's likely to be part of us that wants it and part of us that doesn't. The part that wants it is our motivation. But the part that doesn't is also motivated, except in the opposite direction. In the language of addictions treatment, this is referred to as counter-motivation. What often causes change to grind to a halt is the ambivalence of conflicting motives. To understand resistance, both in yourself and in others, ask yourself "why might I or anyone else, prefer not to think about Climate Change? If I do think about it, what's attractive about the idea that it is a hoax? And if it isn't a hoax, why might I prefer to believe it has nothing to do with me?"

I'm suggesting empathy rather than argument. The danger of arguments, according to behaviour change research, is they tend to increase resistance. Battles can polarise. That doesn't mean we don't speak our truth or share our concerns, more that we recognise how win/lose interactions can give people a motive for discounting information they see as threatening to a position they've taken.

When I put myself in the shoes of the sceptic, I feel an immediate sense of relief. How much more comfortable is the reality that none of this is happening. How glad I'd be if the scientists, and all their measurements, were wrong. It isn't just an inconvenient truth we're facing, but one that can feel psychologically unacceptable. So what's on the other side of the balance? If it is true and as bad as some studies suggest, why might I want to face it? Why might I want to know and also to respond? The way to deal with ambivalence is bring it into the open where it can be worked with and worked through. Part of this involves acknowledging that this stuff can be hard to look at, hard to accept and hard to know how to respond to. If we accept these difficulties, then we can look at how we address them.

Chris goes onto talk more about finding inspiration and finishes with his book of the year: "Social Change 2.0" by David Gershon (High Point/Chelsea Green, 2009). He writes: "Drawing on decades of practice and research into what helps the shift towards sustainability, it describes social change tools that have been proven in the field. The core idea is that while campaigning and protest actions are hugely important, we also need an approach that empowers communities to reinvent our society from the bottom up. That's not a new idea; what is new is the way this book illustrates how community empowerment tools can address the middle bit of change, engaging people and their enthusiasm, mapping out design principles and strategies you can use in promoting the shift towards a sustainable society."

See about science behind recent cold here. Lastly an interesting - but deeply worrying article from the Earth Policy Institute on ice melting. They note that the most notable ice loss in recent years has been the shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean - see article for full story but here is a bit: "From the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 through 1996, ice area decreased at a steady rate of 3 percent per decade in response to rising temperature. In the following decade, ice area decreased by 11 percent, reaching a dramatic minimum in 2007. In September of that year, sea ice occupied only 3.6 million square kilometers, an area 27 percent smaller than the previous record low (in 2005) and 38 percent smaller than the 1979–2007 average. Summer sea ice coverage has increased slightly in the last two years, but it is still far below the long-term average....Declines in ice thickness and volume are just as dramatic. "

Can badgers be a hidden reservoir of TB and pass TB to cattle?

That was the question posed by Martin Hancox and I enclose his thoughts below - many will know he is a local scientist who has been looking at this issue for many years - see his website:
www.badgersandtb.com/

As I've said before I've not had time to look at the details of this science but have read lots and talked to many people - farmers and vets included - and have been convinced by arguments that question that badgers are the primary cause of TB in cattle - that just does not stand up to scrutiny. Anyway see what you think of this convincing argument - at the very least it warrants proper funded investigations.....

The core rationale behind badger culling is that badgers are The widespread endemic hidden source of TB causing new and repeat herd breakdowns ....BUT this is mainly circumstantial in that no cattle source SEEMS to be present ..hence it is assumed transmission is one-way badger to cattle (Zuckerman p.94, Dunnett para 60, Little 33b , Krebs ) .. and a stated explicitly or implicitly Assumption under-pinning badger-cattle computer models (7, 59, 66). (NB To repeat, cattle supposedly NOT passing TB to badgers, or much to other cattle !).

Astonishingly, over nearly 40 years , narrowly focusing on badgers , and having "forgotten how TB works in cows" NO-ONE Has thought to check whether there were enough TB badgers "out there" or if cattle really can catch TB FROM Old Brock : - ALAS, both "Beautiful hypotheses" would seems to be a couple of Darwin's long enduring "False Facts" !! Addressing these two points,firstly :-

A. TRANSMISSION

To look at the broader picture, M.bovis originated as a DNA deletion strain caught from humans as M.tuberculosis when man switched from hunter-gathering to farmer in Mesopotamia with a rise in towns and cities (New Sci. 17 Oct 2008, Israel). Bovine TB first arrived in GB with cattle imported by the Romans &/or in the 17-1800s from Europe ..so not endemic in badgers until then ! (18). Cattle still catch human TB in India & Pakistan, in Poland (Pavlic Vet Mic 112;221), and previously Finland thereby upsetting skin test controls. Ironically, humans with bovine TB can also pass it to cattle cases in : Czechoslovakia, Denmark, GB, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, recently Switzerland; Canada, USA, N Zld (54 b). Indeed Grange estimated that this might be half by aerosol, and half by folklorist "urinating on feedstuffs to improve mineral content" ; Shades of badgers in barns below!

Very valuable insights on TB transmission arise from comparison with human TB (WITH the critically important difference that in cattle "closed " lesions do not arise, so lesions are progressive/infectIOUS throughout ) (Francis 1958, Myers 1968 but Not Gallagher 2005). Thus, human TB can be acquired either by inhalation Consumption or Phthisis ; OR by ingestion formerly from unpasteurised milk Scrofula with swollen neck glands (Sadly STILL a problem in less developed countries eg Mexico, Africa).Its been known for a century that any mammal can catch bovine TB , but routine abbatoir inspection of millions of cattle, sheep and pigs to safeguard the human food-chain , and study of other species suggests that TB may be either mostly respiratory, or "dietary" (Francis 1958, Dannenberg).Hence the Primary complex lesions are either in the lungs, draining to pulmonary lymph nodes (bronchials ,mediastinals) ; OR in head lymph nodes : submandibulars, tonsils draining to retropharyngeals ,less commonly around gut (mesenterics, ileocaecal with M . avium in deer)... BUT With Secondary lesions in highly vascularised lungs (badger),kidney,(badger & man), meninges, periosteum (badger, dog etc 18 a).

Thus A. Cattle TB is c. 90 % respiratory, 10 % by ingestion (2ndary lesions in lung without necessarily in pulmonary lymph nodes (9 b, 18, 22, 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 54 b).And being long lived social herd animals, TB is self-maintaining within herds , often with recrudescence from latent cases Section 2. Enormous numbers of bacilli shed in sputum/faeces, uterine discharges, milk if udder TB (18).Cattle TB is mostly a respiratory consumption , a bronchpneumonia caught simply from other cattle as with other "pneumonias" be they viral PI3,RSV,IBR,BVD /bacterial Pasteurella, Haemophilus,Mannheimia / or Mycoplasmal (including the pleuropneumnias). So, being 90 if not often 99 % respiratory it cannot be mainly from badgers !

B. Sheep TB is very rare because theyre mostly outdoors all year.They dont usually catch TB sharing pasture with TB cattle (nor do selective grazing but otherwise very susceptible rabbits , 11 b), since the minimum dose is c. 13 million bacilli (18).Interestingly high levels in N Zealand may be because puss from open skin lesions in possums on pasture contain 5 million bacilli/gm(68), otherwise cases are either rarely where sheep share barns with cattle (Germany, Uganda, Malone poster 10 Dublin ICMB 4), OR orphans reared on unpasteurised milk (ditto hedgehogs, foals etc in the past ..pasteurisation brought in to stop batches of calves/piglets getting TB originally !).

C. Pigs are the classic example of a spillover "Dead End" host (do not pass it on to fellow pigs or other species). They may catch bovine, human or avian TB by "dirty feeding" but its not self-maintaining , dies out when souce eliminated . Feral pigs hence not a problem eg in Australia , nor mostly N Zld .But useful "sentinels" tracing to otherwise missed herds in USA , and for residual possum TB N Zld after culls.Coyotes are currently indicators of TB in Michigan White-tail deer; badgers have been seen as sentinels for "missed" cattle but in several cases outside southwest hotspot areas, TB was absent in the local herd/s check-tested (beef finishers since gone to join Big Macs !

Wild boar are increasingly blamed as "wildlife reservoirs" of TB, but like farmed/feral pigs may be spillover hosts catching M. bovis, avium, caprae, microti ...including bovis in Cornwall, France,Italy, Spain (high density population May be slf-sustaining ?), and elsewhere in Europe (ICMB5 abstracts 2009). African warthog too get bovine TB...praps thats M africanum ?

Deer are increasingly also blamed as a wildlife TB reservoir, but any species may catch it if in contact with TB cattle (Vet Rec 129;5) . In GB 1972-96 out of 1960 sampled there were just 30 with TB :- 12 fallow, 9 roe, 9 sika. Similarly a DEFRA 2008 study (Paterson) from the southwest out of 719 sampled there were 24 fallow, 2 roe, 1 red... other recent cases in muntjac, and a few red deer on Exmoor (13 b). Clearly they are merely a spillover from cattle ,the species affected being merely the commonest deer locally , and not a maintenance host even in N Zld . Only become such where high stocking & increased close contact occurs eg White tails Michigan , or farmed deer eg Sweden imported from UK .

The two Key Factors determining transmission are dose and a credible route, with 4 main possiblilities discussed below : -
a. aerosol ; b. faeces/urine ; c. other "congenital" . THUS : -

A.AEROSOL .
It is widely recognised that a single bacterium may be enough in animals ranging from mice to men, via rabbits to cattle .More likely 5-6 bacilli as a cfu or colony forming unit which would fill the smallest sputum droplet in aerosols most likely to remain airborne long enough to be breathed in by cattle or man (11 b, 12, 22, 52 b, 54 b ). Estimates of sputum positive cattle in studies from Argentina, GB, Germany, India,, Ireland, Netherlands range from 0.7 to 20 % , INCLuding cases WithOUT Visible Lesions (22, 40 and see Appdx 2 f Kissing cows , 47, 64 ). However, detecting bacilli in sputum smears is notoriously difficult in cattle or man (minimum of 100,000 bacilli/cc needed ?) :- so 399 out of 400 clinical sputum + cases were VL (60).Bacilli were present in faeces from swallowed phlegm in over 50 % of cases inoculated into guinea pigs , so cattle may be infectIOUS at Any stage of the disease (18 a ). Aerosolised dust may be nearly as effective as sputum droplets in cattle yards/barns (18).

Transmission is most likely with prolonged exposure ... in one school study a minimum of 130 hours shared classes was necessary to catch TB from the index case (53 b, Ewer).Hence over-wintering in poorly ventilated dark barns or yards is the most risk scenario; although TB spreads in herds never brought indoors eg clustering round waterholes in africa or australia, also in Cape Buffalo herds Kruger Park. In a barn experiment of elegant simplicity a century ago Svensson found that 5 calves were reactors within 6 mnths, the other 8 within 12 mnths (39);similarly, c. half the contact cattle were infected within 7 mnths (ISG;235); and so latent newly affected cases which are still test negative at spring turnout end up later as reactors "Due to encountering badgers again "!!. Experimental studies of in-contact cattle transmission reveal that it may take around a year or so for "low dose" ie "naturally infected" cattle donors to become infectIOUS and pass on TB (22; also 5, 6,10,38,47 b, 52 a .. Gopal to home bred cattle in ISG;143 ... badger/calf yard experiment 33 ). Doubts over cattle-to cattle transmission have arisen simply because with annual testing underway in most schemes since the war ( 60 yrs) MOST cases are caught before the more infectious VL stage ..thats how eradication works ! .. (Section 4, 22, 24, 29, 42, 52 b ).
N B ...Experimental high dose studies produce misleading results with APParently early infectiousness (6, 29 ,38, 44 ) AND similarly many dont seem to realise that in both cattle and man with advanced TB , the steady stream of coughed up/swallowed bacilli causes secondary lesions in larynx, tonsils, retropharyngeals, lower gut and mesenterics , and probably kidneys ? (18 , 6).

Chris Cheeseman found very little spred even within badger clans with a lung hoocher present , so badger to cattle aerosols in barns a non-starter .

B.FAECES AND URINE TRANSMISSION ?

The various studies of badger to cattle transmission have been focussed mainly on the "risk" from excreta such as urine, faeces, sputum ; either at ; latrines or urination marking crossing points through hedges etc 2, 3, 4, 26, 28, 56, OR
in barns Little, Macdonald , also 20, 55, 58, 63 & Grange as above .
Ironically Littles' study is the Only Proven case of badger-cattle spread in nearly 40 years . And badgers evicted by territorial mates may end up in barns .. 1 or 2 cases annually of sub-dominant young sows having cubs theyre when ousted from the main alpha pairs' main sett (as in meerkats, or wolves). The particular difficulties with such studies are re Dose needed and bacillus survival .

l.Dose, shedding of bacilli may reach 4 billion /day in man so easy to see how plane travellers breathing recycled air at 30,000 ft can get TB on even short flights //possum pus from open skin wounds may have 5 billion bacilli / gm, so inquisitive nosing of moribund possums by cattle or deer a plausible transfer (ingestion though ?) //38 million bacilli in 38 lbs of faeces /day in cattle in one old study ..probably far higher with advanced clinical cases (18) // so badgers with 300,000 bacilli in urine, or 200,000 in faeces or sputum rather a low risk comparatively .

Infective Dose ; - minimum needed in cattle estimated as 400 million M'Fadyean in 22
several thousand million or 10 million (Sigurdsson ) in Francis 1947,
5000 (53, NB pattern of lesions suggests may have been respiratory)
SO , IF the minimum dose is c. 1 million bacilli (39) that would be c. 3 cc of badger urine which seems an unlikely transfer ...unless a sick badger with kidney TB left puddles in barn feed troughs and a cow deliberately seeking extra minerals drank it ! Far more likely are rats visiting barn feed troughs from neighbouring farms , and a faecal/urine /frass with cattle pellets gets inhaled .Most folk dont realise that rat TB presents as numerous micro-lesions "miliary" TB Yersins phenomenon, so overlooked in most studies 13 b ... more rats than humans in GB !

Francis found that cattle rarely caught TB from other cattle at pasture, but often did when first entering the cowshed & breeding herd (18 a , b). Confirmed by studies of limited spread by super-contamination with fresh slurry (37, 57).Suggestions that lung infection can arise by burping of rumen gases (eructation ) from ingested feedstuffs unconvincing (46, 62).

Cattle avoid grass contaminated with faeces hence the random scatter of dark green tufts marking former cow pats in recently grazed fields. Likewise cattle may avoid smelly badger faeces and even when short of grazing dont get right down to scat level in dung Pits (2, 28). As regards badger urine, one urination may be 30 cc hence c. 9 million bacilli, but 99 % disappears soaking into the soil, any residual TB on pasture may be disinfected within 3 days in summer, or for sputum 1 week, faeces 2 weeks , about 1 mnth each in winter but cattle in yards then anyway ; badger carcases self-sterilise within weeks also (34, Krebs p.50). Whilst it is often stated that bacilli can survive up to 2 years IN soil (away from UV light), in practice any badger sources accessible to cattle are likely to be of improbably short duration (22).

C. OTHER . "Congenital" , where cattle schemes are absent cattle with advanced clinical TB may transmit trans-placenta in utero but despite huge numbers of bacilli, relatively few cases by this route (calf a reactor at birth).Bulls may have genital TB eg in semen , but hire bulls more likely to have lung TB and spread respiratory (18a ).Far more likely "congenital" spread is via udder TB , a very efficient way to infect batches of calves via bulked milk ; pasteurization first introduced to stop batches of calves/piglets getting TB , only latrer used for human supplies ( 18, 39, more recently 5, 15, 43, Trioni herd Wales ).

B. TB IN BADGERS : PATTERNS AND NUMBERS

Having concluded back in the 1980s that transmission was one-way badger to cattle, it became "accepted wisdom" that badger TB was 82 % respiratory and 18 % by bite wounds (7 c,d, 61 ). But even experimental thigh injections lead to secondary lung lesions (25); and just as with human miners , living underground , badger lungs may be prone to TB due to silicosis (18b, 27, 49), or other damage via adiaspiromycosis or Capillaria lung worms .

Cheeseman found little evidence of spread within groups even with a lung "hoocher" present, and badgers often sleeping in a heap in the bedding filled nest chamber (Badger Watch TV programmes ).Hence usually only 1-2 TB badgers /clan ( 7a, Krebs p.48). A hoocher sow is most likely to achieve pseudovertical transmission by weaning her cub/s on regurgitated earthworm soup with TB flavouring . There are very few sputum + badgers, so fighting wounds more likely to be infected by sett contamination.

So, does the traditional claim that the main hidden reservoir of TB is a widespread, large , endemic /self-maintaining badger TB source with one-way badger TO cattle transmission stand up // Sadly NO ... CONSIDER the following 5 points : --

1. badgers seem to be merely a spillover host just like "dirty feeding" pigs above, catching whatever Mycobacterium spp are available .. including , bovis // avium Zuckerman p. 89// paratuberculosis m.avium, MAFF rept 4;15//microti Moser ICMB 4 ;60//and chelonei 36.

2. a critical reappraisal of badger lesions suggests that in the majority of badgers TB is by ingestion . Most studies note submandibular lymph node lesions (under tongue, which may self-heal thereby hiding the true aetiology , 1) ; and with secondary lesions in lungs and kidneys (QV pig) :- l, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26/ 29 ISG p.77/ 30, 33 a,b , 36 ,48, 49, 50, 59, 61, 65.

Early lesions most likely reveal acquisition pathway , whether in cattle (18a, 40, 41 )or badgers . O'Boyles superb study (50) of some 25,000 Irish badgers culled under licence 1997-2006 show lesions in 3301 cases , clearly separating those with early single lesions //later TB multiple lesion cases (up to 8 sites) per badger . Thus :- (l.n.= lymph node) ...

Ingestion submandibular, pharyngeal,parotid l.n. 518/813 ; submaxillary l.n. 7/0 ; mesenteric l.n. 14/92 ; liver 33/128;
hepatic l.n. 35/179; spleen 1/34; kidney 84/193

Inhalation lung 214/ 602; bronchial,mediastinal l.n 329/830

skin (bite wounds in territorial fights often neck , above tail ) axillary l.n. 22/72; prescapular l.n. 142/442 ; popliteal 298/ 407 ;
inguinal l.n. 7/3 ; skin 56/165
Other :- 1 testes, 1 placenta, 1 mammary gland (so little congenital spread ) ; 1 tonsil, pleura, peritoneum, omerntum, heart/pericardium, adrenals .

3.endemic high density badger population ? TB may be "endemic" within a clan in so far as an infected long lived individual is present (7 a,c.d ; Krebs p.48); but TB nearly died out in the Woodchester study population in 1984/1993 (13 b). Modelling attempts to explain the persistence of TB in populations such as by threshold group size fail to recognise the error of the original solely badger -cattle transfer assumption, and badger TB prevalence simply reflects spillover via the severity of the preceding cattle breakdown (59 b, 29)...with prevalences ranging from 0 to 100 % (7a, Krebs p.46 , 67 , see Appendix 3 b ). A bad breakdown in four "inner ring" farms in Woodchester in the mid-1980s with over 90 reactor cattle spilt over to a new clan (13 b, 48 ); hence cattle TB "Seemed" to peak BEFORE that in badgers !! (65) .

4. Not surprising then that badger TB levels in the 1980s were c. 15 % from culls, but under 5 % from RTAs. The clean ring culls clearly showed a random scatter of micro-pockets of TB badgers at the epicentre of the farm breakdowns , but not in the intervening area (see Appendix 3 e). The dramatic shrinking of cattle TB from countrywide in the 1950s down to tiny southwest hotspots (of high density dairying ) seemingly left NO RESIDUAL TB badgers (died out ?) (Section 4 ). Hence the survey of 23,032 RTA badgers 1972-96 found 1066 with TB , of which 942 were in the 7 southwest hotspot counties (Cornwall, Devon, Avon, Glos, Dorset, Somerset, Wilts ); the rest in Herefd./Worcs, Sussex, Staffs, Dyfed, Gwent, 1 Glamorgan old record), just 1 in Scotland Lothians (34):24 counties with additions since of Derbyshire, Powys, probably to be discovered Leics, Yorks.
The textbook expansion of cattle TB since the mid-1980s (Section 4) is beautifully documented with Krebs report colour maps pp.. confirmed breakdowns 57, unconfirmed more widely 156-7, repeat breakdowns 58, 91; as reflected by expansion of TB badgers via culls/RTAs 165-8 ; including DNA spoligotypes of cattle then badgers 67, 173-4 (cf.Ireland , 51). The RTA southwest hotspot 1972-90 (Cornwall, Devon, Glos) has "moved" to least controlled cattle TB AREAS : Herefd/Worcs. Powys in recent English/Welsh RTA surveys (ISG p.75, 83-4).

5. a. Too few TB badgers to be a major reservoir

RBCT /Krebs cull only 1515 (311 reactive, 1204 proactive) out of 11,000 culled from 2000 sq.km (see Table Sect.6 (3))

Offaly cull only 141 out of 1232 culled in 600 sq.km

Four areas cull only 450 out of 2360 culled , but only 240 VL possibly infectious , and adjusted to exclude buffer zone ones
just Cork 115, Donegal 37, Kilkenny 59, Monaghan 75, ie just 286 out of 960 sq.km. (24 b).Just 37 TB badgers in
Donegal with an alleged impact on cattle of 96 % (BUT in fact a flare UP in reference cattle !) (24 b,51 b)
b. Too few infectIOUS badgers :- Woodchester, study since 1970s , c. 300-350 badgers in 9 sq.km with clinical sampling of live badgers , yielded only 49 excretors by 1990 (37 % with urine TB)(65) ; later on over 14 years just 188 were
infected of which 41 were infectious and 17 superexcretors (the only ones usually suggested as capable of passing on
TB ) (59 a).

The RBCT cull of 11,000 badgers found just 166 superexcretors out of 9919 detailed autopsies (ISG p.77, 30).

In CONCLUSION , MAFF admitted back in 1982 that it was far easier to explain how cattle pass TB to badgers than how badgers Might give cows a respiratory lung infection (33 b). And as MAFFs' John Wilesmith said at a Consultative Panel meeting c. 1992, if badger to cattle transfer happens at all its such a rare event as to be little practical relevance !

Whilst the "first" official TB badger was in 1971 in Glos, 1975 in Ireland , in fact TB badgers occurred at London Zoo in 1938, at Whipsnade in the 1950s (now at Edinburgh museum ); the first wild TB badgers in Switzerland caught it eating infected roe deer as a last spillover from cattle in the 1950s . Some 50 % of Ulster badgers had TB in the 1970s , but were regarded merely as a spillover host ; Thus Nobadger culls , yet cattle controls nearly eradicated TB by 1971 just 174 reactors (see Appdx 3 e )..alas premature switch to 3 yr tests allowed upsurge. TB has now been found in badgers in Spain , Italy .. further search eg in Poland ,Russia etc might find more.

Interestingly, with 20 : 20 hind-sight, the mysterious coughing illness which decimated some clans back in the 1935-60s era in Glos., Hants, Shropshire, Surrey, Germany , Netherlands was probably TB but unrecognised back then ! ( Mamm.Rev. 10;151).

Thus it seems crystal clear that CATTLE TB is a respiratory "Consumption" caught mainly from other cows , and NOT mainly from badgers ..... BADGER TB is essentially a "dietary" "Scrofula" caught by spillover FROM cattle, with little spread to other badgers , let alone TO cattle . AND there are simply too few TB badgers and even fewer likely to be infectIOUS by some unexplained route to cattle .. for them to be even a minor reservoir contributing to cattle TB .

SOooo alas Old Brock dead end spillover : Victim not Villain !

REFERENCES (NB. IF these shortened citations are unclear, just ask : hancoxm(at)live.co.uk)

1 Anderson 1985 Phil Trans R Soc 310; 327 model and lesions
2 Benham 1989 Br Vet J 145; 226, 1991 Br Vet J 147;517, 1993 in Hayden ;189 ... latrines
3 Bohm 2008 Ecography doi , & J An Ec doi , & White Trend Mic 16; doi ...2009 Plosone 4 ; doi ....latrines
4 Brown 1994 Trend Mic 2; 43 .. 1993 in Hayden; 139 ..latrines
5 Buddle 1994 N Zld Vet J 42; 167 experimental transfer
6 Cassidy 1999 J Comp Path 121; 321 (& 119;27) lesions exptlly, Vet Rec 144; 139 tonsils
7 Cheeseman a. 1981 J Appl Ec 18;795 4 areas / b. 1985 Mam Rev 15; 125 Staffs /c & d. 1988 Mam Rev 18; 61 , 1989 Epid Inf
103; 113
8 Clifton-Hadley 1993 Epid Inf 111;9 lesions
9 Corner 1990 Aust Vet J 67; 389 cattle lesions , 2006 Vet Mic 112;303 badgers etc
10 Costello 1998 Vet J 155; 245 calf expt
11 Dannenberg a. similarity man/animals 1984 Microbiology ;344 ; b. also in Tuberculosis 2001, 81; 87 rabbit models
12 Dean 2005 Inf Immun 73; 6467 dose by aerosol
13 Delahay a. 2000 J An Ec 69; 428 Woodchester ; b. (other spp) 2001 Tuberculosis 81;43 & 2007 Vet J 173;287
14 Dolan in Hayden ;108 lesions
15 Doran in ERAD 2006-7 papers milk TB
16 Dunnett et 1986 report
17 Fagan in Hayden ;117 lesions
18 Francis a. 1947 Bovine tuberculosis ...b. 1958 Tb in animals and man (NB Myers & Steele same 1968)
19 Gallagher 1976 Vet Rec 98;9 //1979 Vet Rec 105;546 // 1980 in Zuckerman // 1998 Vet Rec 142;710//2000 Res Vet Sci
69;203 // 2005 Vet Times 35;14 // 2009 Cattle Practice 17;45
20 Garnett 2002 Proc R Soc 269; 1487, 2003 appl An Biol 80;1 , (2003 see Roper) ... barns
21 Gavier-Widen 2001 Vet Rec 148; 299 lesions
22 Goodchild Tuberculosis 81; 23 cattle-cattle spread questions
23 Grange 1996 Let Appl Mic 23; 203 & 2001 Tuberculosis 81; 71 bovine TB in man passed to cattle
24 Griffin 1995 Ir Vet J 48; 228 cattle-cattle // ERAD 2002-3 ; 1 the 4 areas NB Also Eves 1999, Ir Vet J 52;199 Offaly cull
25 Hancox both cattle & badgers see Section 7 "my refs" ; & Appdcs 3 b & c ( & Mam Rev 10;151 parasites and diseases )
26 Hayden 1993 The Badger (ICMB Dublin 1991)
27 Higgins 1985 Inf Immun 48; 252 silicosis
28 Hutchings 1997 Vet J 153; 149 ... 1999 Epid Inf 122; 167 .. latrines
29 ISG 2007 Final Report
30 Jenkins 2007 Epid Inf badger lesions doi
31 Jubb 1985 Pathology of domestic animals
32 Krebs 1997 Report
33 Little a. 1982 Vet Rec 111;550 badger/calf ; b. 1982 J Hyg 89;211 Dorset
34 MAFF Consultative Panel Badger Reports .. 1979 No 3 // No.4 ;15 paratb // 1996 No 20 summary TB badgers from
RTAs/culls
35 Macdonald 25 Oct 1984 New Sci ;17 case unproven ! & old records in barns
36 Mahmood 1987 Epid Inf 98; 155 exptl infection
37 Maddock 1933, 1934 see in ref 22 super-contaminated pasture
38 McCorry 2005 Vet Rec 157; 613 exptl transmission
39 McFadyean 1910 J Comp Path 23 ; 239 & 289 an old but valuable classic on cattle transmission
40 McIlroy 1986 Vet Rec 118;718 early lesions and see Appdx 2f Kissing cows
41 Medlar 1940 Am Rev Tuberc 41; 283 early cattle lesions
42 Menzies 2000 Vet J 160; 92 cattle-cattle ?
43 Monies 2006 Gov Vet J 16;81 BVD and TB via milk
44 Morrison 2000 Vet Rec 146; 236 ISG view on " problem" of transmission
45 Moser in Dublin ICMB4 Handbook; 60.. microti in badgers
46 Mullenax 1964 Am J Vet Res 25; 1583 eructation
47 Neill A 1988 Vet Rec 122;184 lesions// B 1989 Vet Rec 124;269 && 1992 Vet Rec 131; 45 calf contacts
C 1994 Vet Rec 135; 134 sputum + D 2001 Tuberculosis 81;79 cattle-cattle
48 Newell 1997 Epid Inf 118; 173 new clan Woodcheter
49 Nolan 1994 Vet Micr 40; 179 lesions
50 O'Boyle ERAD Papers : -- 1997; 37 // 1998; 10 // 1999 ;55 // 2001; 19 // 2003 ;13 // 2005 ;106 :- Badger Lesions !!!
51 Olea-Popelka a. 2005 Prev Vet Med 71; 57 ...b. Donegal ERAD 2006-7;21 & Ir Vet J 59;683
52 O'Reilly 1988 Ir Vet News 10;11 contacts // & Daborn 1995 Tubercle & Lung 76;1 overview incl man See Ewer 2003 in
Lancet 361;1168 school outbreak
53 Palmer 2004 Amer J Vet Res 65; 1483 white tail deer transmission
54 Pritchard a. 1987 Epid Inf 98; 145 lesions Sussex study // 1988 J Comp Path 99; 357 centenary overview whole history
bovine TB
55 Roper 2003 Cattle Practice 11;9 barns
56 Scantlebury 2004 J Dairy Sci 87; 330 latrines
57 Schnelllner .. see in ref super-contamination pasture
58 Sleeman 2008 Vet Rec 163; 724 barns
59 Smith a. 1995 Mammalia 59; 639 Woodchester ... b. models 2001 Tuberculosis 81;51
60 Steward 1941 Vet Rec 53;521 clinical samples
61 Stuart 1988 Rev Sci tech OIE 7; 929 lesions
62 Waldo 1966 J Dairy Sci 44 ;1766 eructation
63 Ward 2008 Vet Rec 163; 107 badgers in barns
64 Whelan 2009 in N Zld Handbook abstracts ;136 .... Also Conlan ;58 RE-Think assumptions latency/infectiousness
65 Wilesmith 1991 N Zld Symposium ;95 lesions & Woodchester
66 Wilkinson 2004 J Appl Ec 41; 492 models
67 Woodroffe 2005 J Appl Ecol 42; 852 patterns badger TB , dont accept VL cows more infectIOUS !
68 Zuckerman 1980 report

Campaign builds against Oldbury

OK so lots has been going on with nuclear stuff and I can't do justice in this hurried post - but will include here the latest local Green party letter to press and some other info including about the recent events and the consultations.

But let me start with an interesting piece of info that arrived in an email to me - it is often quoted that nuclear's contribution to energy is 20% but this figure is from over 6 year ago. It is now 13% (See DUKES published by Department of Energy and Climate Change). One of the reasons is the falling 'Load Factor' i.e. the amount of electricity produced divided by the total capacity - nuclear power stations now produce less than 50% of their possible maximum output in 2008. When you consider that electricity is 18% of our energy supply nuclear produces 18% x 13% ie 2.34% of our energy supply.

In terms of energy security the Government has only itself to blame for the wholly lamentable state of affairs. No industry is more strategically important than energy, yet they have dithered and dithered for 10 years before authorising against their own advisors, a new generation of nuclear plants.

Public exhibition in Stroud

Thursday last week saw an exhibition at Stroud Old Town Hall on plans for the new nukes at Oldbury - sadly I was unable to go due to work commitments during that day and evening but I understand barely 14 people turned out - perhaps not surprising as I saw virtually no publicity and the weather was diabolical that day. Indeed the one anti-nuclear campaigner gave up leafleting outside the exhibition.

Oldbury has just been named as one of 10 preferred sites selected for the continued generation of nuclear power - it comes under Horizon Nuclear Power, which is the name being used by E.ON and RWE npower for the joint energy project - to have it's headquarters in Gloucester. Anyhow the plans showed that there could be up to three reactors and up to four huge cooling towers measuring between 70 and 200 metres high

The displays used in the public exhibition in Stroud and I understand other areas include a preliminary report on the potential environmental impacts of a new nuclear plant at Oldbury - ie their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report plus the potential reactor designs, cooling towers and some illustrative layouts for the site - see Scoping Report here. Deadline for responses is 31st December - no time at all.

Nuke talk in Oldbury highlights cancer concerns

Oldbury Memorial Hall last Wednesday was the site of a talk by Dr Iain Fairlie who spoke in Stroud a couple of years ago - see here - this time he talked about the German government's KiKK study into the link between leukaemia and nuclear power in Germany. Also at the meeting will be Sue D'Arcy, co-author of "Still Fighting for Gemma" who lived near Sellafield and whose daughter Gemma died of leukaemia.

Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy (SANE) Campaign organised the talk - they have just started a blog - see here - it has a pic of what those cooling towers will look like here - and there is also Angela Paine of Stop Oldbury's new blog - see here.

Dr Fairlie is quoted saying: "The German KiKK study provides incontrovertible scientific evidence that infants near nuclear power stations are more than twice as likely to develop leukaemia. The Government should accept these findings, adopt the Precautionary Principle, and rethink its policy to build more nuclear stations. In my view, the Government's plans are irresponsible given the powerful new health evidence against them. Unfortunately, our Government seems to give the impression that its plans are more important than the health of nearby babies and infants. People living near reactors will certainly get that message. In Germany, women of child-bearing age are already moving away from nuclear power stations: the same could occur here."

Dr Fairlie also said: "It took four years to carry out the study and the findings have been accepted by the German government. As a result, no new nuclear power plants are proposed in Germany. But the study is almost unheard of here in Britain. If I lived here, I would write to the nuclear power station to ask when it was going to open up its reactors and then not be here when it did it."

Dr Fairlie gave some possible explanations for the KiKK findings, including a pulse of radioactive gas when reactors were opened up for refuelling. He branded a British Government study as "bad science" and hurried compared to the larger German investigation, saying that although the UK study found a 23 per cent increase in childhood leukaemia near UK atomic reactors, the study said the data was not statistically significant. It also excluded the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria from the exercise.

Dr Fairlie said: "I think we should have a big European-wide study for all nuclear power stations and advise local people about KiKK. The Government should also re-think this mad rush to build new nuclear power stations."

Also present was Dr Karen Parkhill of Cardiff University School of Psychology who helped compile a study into concerns of local residents of new nuclear power stations being built - see Telegraph article here re her work.

Green party letter to press on Oldbury

I wonder how many people in our area realise that they are downwind of the site for a huge new nuclear power station?

What is proposed is a power station of around 3,300Mw capacity - over seven times the current output of the existing Oldbury power station. This will involve either two French designed Areva EPR reactors, of which the first examples currently under construction in Finland and France are both beset with problems, or three of the American Westinghouse AP1000. Both designs are based on the pressurised water design (or PWR), which will rely on the integrity of its steel pressure vessels for its up to 60 years design life. Finally, even our mighty Severn seems insufficient to supply the cooling requirements. It may need three or four cooling towers that could be nearly 700 feet tall, with a steam plume on top.

So there will be a considerable visual impact. But that is not what worries me. I am worried about the safety of the pressurised water design, which, over the years, has given us both the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown, admittedly by another manufacturer (Babcock & Wilcox), and many scares concerning problems with corrosion and metallurgy. Yes, lessons will have been learned from these incidents, yes, we have an independent nuclear regulation and inspection system. But for a proposed sixty year reactor life?

A serious accident at the Oldbury nuclear sites would give rise to airborne contamination, and the prevailing south-westerly winds will bring any contamination to us first. Nuclear power carries with it a massive potential risk and it is not right that those of us who are concerned about such issues won’t get our say at a public enquiry. Additionally after over 50 years of nuclear energy production there is still no site identified for the long-term internment of nuclear waste. Apparently this merely requires a technical solution. Well where is it?

It beggars belief that the government still spends far more on nuclear power research than it does on benign, natural sources such as wave power and that the energy agenda is only ever really addressed and meaningfully funded in terms of increasing capacity and never in terms of smart ways to decrease demand.

As a country we do need to plan for the energy gap as many of our current power stations come to the end of their lives, North Sea oil runs out and gas supplies risk political interruption. We need a coherent programme of large-scale renewable installation, AND a programme of meaningful energy efficiencies measures. Without these in place the case for new nuclear has not been made.

Martin Whiteside – Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Stroud
Thrupp, Stroud

Consultation time

This is a confusing time with various consultations - we have the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy Infrastructure and Justification and Justification draft decisions. There are very real concerns about how as members of the community we can possibly consider the volume of material? How can we make meaningful submissions to the consultation with so little time? It is plainly not a fair set up - and looks like it has been designed to make it difficult.

It is probably inconceivable that the NPS will be signed off by the government until after the general election - this means uncertainty until May 2010 at least - Tories are unlikely to substantively alter the NPSs but we don’t know what, if elected, they plan to do with the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

Infact the NPS consultation finishes on 22nd February 2010. Another important date is 15th January, which is the closing date for submissions to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s hearings on the NPS. It would be great if people can make submissions because given the site-specific nature of the nuclear NPS in particular, it is important that people who stand to be directly affected by new nuclear power have the opportunity to have their say. Indeed I understand that once the NPS is designated then it will become almost impossible to raise issues about key issues such as ‘need’ or ‘location’ at the planning application (IPC) stage.

E.On at Oldbury and EdF at Hinkley are obliged to consult locally as part of the IPC planning process (see above), but this isn’t the last chance people will get to have their say. According to DECC and the IPC people will be given a third chance to air their views once the IPC examine specific applications, so long as people have registered an interest in the process.

As Greenpeace point out the question here, is how much will really be up for discussion and debate when say the IPC sit down to consider Hinkley Point C. And a lot of that depends on the outcome of this consultation, which is why it’s important that people raise their concerns now.

Many issues are yet to be resolved - for example spent fuel storage at new reactor sites being stored for up to 160 years. The plans for how this will be done are not clear but according to DECC they will have to be agreed by the Secretary of State before reactor applications can proceed further - can we really believe that people will not be allowed to discuss the principle of whether they want what amounts to a radwaste dump on their doorstep for 160+ years?

• To take part in the Government consultations go to: https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home/ where you can order hard copies of the consultation documents. Or call 0870 600 5533. Ask for all documents related to the nuclear policy statement and ‘justification’.

Other nuke news

- a report by leading investment analysts Citigroup pulls no punches in explaining the financial risks to companies pursuing new build. It also explains how it doesn't think new build is possible without taxpayer subsidies. Most of it is in beautifully plain english - recommended reading. See it here.

- An incentive to persuade the private sector to build new nuclear power stations would add no more than £40 a year to consumers' bills, the leading company planning to build the reactors has said. The figure is the first indication from the industry of the probable cost of financial support needed for the new reactors, which are likely to cost about £5bn each. See FT article here.

- Meanwhile former government advisers challenge the government's nuclear waste claims. Four former members of the government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, including its Chairman, Professor Gordon MacKerron, have written to Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, informing him of their concerns about the government’s interpretation of radioactive waste management policy, as stated in the draft National Policy Statement on Nuclear Energy announced on 9 November. See Observer here. In particular, the statement:
• ignores the recommendation from CoRWM that the management of radioactive waste from new nuclear build should be subject to a separate process of examination;
• claims that 'arrangements exist or will exist' for the long term management of radioactive waste. These are premature. Neither the scientific nor the social requirements have yet been met.
• that the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) 'will not need to consider this question' of how to manage and dispose of new build waste directly contradicts the need for potential host communities to be able to question the need for on-site, long term storage (up to 160 years) of new build waste.

- Meanwhile the government have failed to take proper account of the hidden cost of Britain's new generation of reactors - not least the destruction of the Kalahari desert in Namibia and millions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions a year. The Namibian government plans to build a coal-fired power station to provide electricity for the uranium mines. This will use more than 2.4m tonnes of coal a year from South Africa, and could produce more than 10 million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year. See Observer here. Well let's be fair we know nuclear is not the answer to climate change - too little, too late and diverting much needed investment in renewables to build nukes.....and hey all the reports indicate uranium is not going to last more than 70 years at best - and we will need to import from places like Namibia where we should have grave concerns re their health and safety - only last week a Greenpeace study found workers contaminated.

- Jeremy Leggett, chairman of Solar Century and one of the UK’s most respected proponents of renewable energy, gave a clear message to the recent New Economics Foundation conference, saying that renewables are the only way the UK can meet the climate challenge safely, cheaply, and in time. He said: “It’s amazing the propaganda that’s being pushed out for nuclear and against renewables. They say renewables can’t do the base load but it’s utter rubbish. How do I know? Because the Germans have done it already. In 2008 they mixed and matched renewables and ran the country on them at scale and in different weather conditions. We can do it here with imagination – and we will.” See more here.

- The HSE have recently reported their concern about the safety system in the French EPR reactor design. In an unprecedented joint statement, the French, UK and Finnish regulators condemned the computerised system. They added that more work needed to be done by EdF on ensuring cracks don’t develop in the nuclear fuel cladding. This is especially important due to the intensity of the ‘high burn up’ fuel. And they were concerned that analysis of human factors linked to reactor safety was insufficient. They had even more to say about the Westinghouse AP1000 design which could be built at Oldbury by ‘Horizon’, a new EON, RWE conglomerate. The regulators echoed US reports that the containment building could be destroyed in an earthquake, tornado or even high winds! They also questioned the design of new massive ‘squib valves’ designed to inject a charge of pressurised water into the cooling system if it fails. But HSE thought it might not work when needed or even go off when not needed, dangerously over-pressurising the cooling system.

- Please sign this petition if you haven't already, to the Prime Minister to Stop the Re-development of Nuclear Power Stations throughout the United Kingdom. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NuclearNo

- Former Director of Friends of the Earth, Green party member and famous nuclear critic Jonathon Porrit will speak at a Stop Hinkley public meeting against Hinkley C on Tuesday March 16th. See Porritt in Guardian here.