	<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://nuclearinfo.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>NIS Nuclear Information Service | home</title>
 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org</link>
 <description><div class='nav_infoheader'><div class='navinfoblockidL'><div class='home_iblock'></div></div><div class='navinfoblockidR'><div class='home_iblock'></div></div></div><div class='nav_infoinnercontent'>NIS (Nuclear Information Service) is a not-for-profit, independent information service, which works to promote public awareness and foster debate on nuclear disarmament and related safety and environmental issues.
<p/>
The NIS website is a place where you can access some of the information we hold. Here you will find information on what the government are doing with the Trident nuclear weapons system, nuclear convoys / warhead transport (Nukewatch) and regular updates on planning applications and safety issues at AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment), as well as relevent Hansard entries and many other things.</div></description>
 <language>en</language>
  <pubDate>2008-11-20 00:44</pubDate><item>
		 <title>Burghfield AWE floods - Lib Dems call for inquiry</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/policy/parliament/a1956</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[The Liberal Democrats have called for a full public inquiry into <b>potentially catastrophic flooding</b> at the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at Burghfield, in Berkshire during the 2007 floods.
<p/>
Source: <a href="http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2008/10/opposition_calls_for_inquiry_after_near_flooding_of_nuclear_sites.html">New Civil Engineer 14th Oct 2008</a>


]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-10-22 22:22</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>SWAMPED !</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/nuclear_sites/accidents/a1952</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[<div style="font-size: 1.1em;"><p>
The devastating impact of the July 2007 floods
on Britain’s nuclear weapons factories</p>
</div>
<div style="max-width: 400px; text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
<h4>Official documents reveal ‘near miss’ at nuclear weapons factory during 2007 floods - <span style="color: #f01000;">Channel 4 News 7pm Monday October 13th reports NIS story</span></h4>
<p>Live nuclear work suspended for nine months as a result of damage caused. Scale of flooding covered up by site managers.
</p>
<p>
A new NIS report, <a href="/view/nuclear_sites/accidents/a1952">'SWAMPED!'</a> looks at the effects of severe flooding at the top secret Atomic Weapons Establishment.
</p>
</div>
<!--
<div class="reveal">
<div class="clickedformore">
<div style="max-width: 400px; padding-bottom: 18px; text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
The documents provided to NIS reveal that:
<ol>
	<li>
	Despite the scale of the crisis, a site emergency was not declared during the flooding and the government regulators responsible for the Burghfield site were not informed about the incident until two days afterwards.
	</li>
	<li>Radioactive material was still being recovered from buildings at AWE Burghfield nearly three weeks after the floods.
	</li>
	<li>
	Following the floods live nuclear work was suspended for nine months until buildings and emergency systems had been repaired.
	</li>
	<li>
	The site had a history of flooding, but a programme of remediation works had been neglected and emergency plans had overlooked many of the risks associated with flooding.
	</li>
	<li>
	The costs of the damage are likely to run to millions of pounds.
	</li>
	<li>
	Managers decided it was 'prudent' not to reveal the impact of the flooding to the public.
	</li>
</ol>
<p>
Despite the history of flooding at Burghfield, AWE are pushing ahead with a programme of building work intended to develop new facilities at the site which would allow the production of a new generation of warheads to replace Trident nuclear weapons. 
</p><p>
Di McDonald, Director of NIS said:  “AWE’s own review of the flood reveals that two facilities at Burghfield experienced ‘near miss’ events, and power and alarms to most of the site had to be shut down because of the scale of the flooding.
</p><p>
“Much of the impact of the storm could have been avoided if actions aimed at preventing flooding had been followed up by AWE, raising serious questions about management standards at a site which handles radioactive materials, high explosives, and hazardous chemicals. 
</p><p>
“Ironically, the nuclear weapons manufactured at Burghfield can do nothing to protect us against global climate change – by far the most urgent and serious threat we face to our security.” 
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clickformore">
/ more /
</div>
-->]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-10-09 22:49</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>Judicial Review of the government's decision to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/legal/nuclear_weapons/a1941</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[<p>
Dear Friends 
</p>
<p>
Thank you for your
support and interest in the NIS case against Trident.
</p>
<p>
We have now
submitted our Appeal Skeleton Argument. The MoD have an opportunity
to answer our points, then a High Court judge looks at both papers to
assess the chances of a successful Appeal. If s/he refuses an Appeal,
we have the right to an oral hearing when our barrister puts our case
in the high court. If we are granted an Appeal on the papers alone,
work starts to prepare the case in detail.
</p>
]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-08-19 18:16</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>Evidence of government multilateral disarmament gestures?</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/policy/Hansard/a1958</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[New Secretary of State for Defence, John Hutton lists evidence of government multilateral disarmament gestures
but the fact remains that no UK bomb is on the table.]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-10-23 14:00</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>NEW NIS Submission to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY CONSULTATION</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/policy/government/a1955</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[<small>Global Security: Non-Proliferation</small>
<p/>
NIS argues that the risks posed by British nuclear weapons production and road transport of warheads threaten each individual citizen and our way of life. Additionally,
the risk of a criticality event at the substandard warhead assembly/disassembly facilities at AWE Burghfield is also unacceptable and unjustifiable.
<p/>
Read the <a href="/files/Sub.%20to%20FCO%20Sept%2008.pdf">NIS submission to the FCO</a>.]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-10-22 13:46</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>AWE Bylaws Legal Challenge</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/legal/civil_liberties/a1954</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[A Judicial Review Appeal of the <b>High Court decision on AWE Bylaws</b> in March 2008 is to be heard in the High Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London on
<b>Wednesday, 26th November 2008</b>.]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-10-22 13:16</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>Proposed compensation to communities near nuclear waste sites</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/policy/government/a1949</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste has to be stored at all nuclear facilities including AWE Aldermaston.<p/> Decommissioned submarines waste also has to be stored for many years. The government solution of a deep underground depository to take it in future is not certain and is not acceptable since would not be retrievable in the event of leakage.]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-09-19 14:00</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		 <title>Manpower shortages in MoD operational nuclear submarine safety personnel</title>
		 <link>http://nuclearinfo.org/view/submarines/UK_fleet/a1946</link>
		 <description><![CDATA[<p>
Nuclear Submarine issues raised in the<br />
Ministry of Defence Annual Performance Report 2007/8<br />
<br />
Operational 'pinch points'<br />
<br />
Catagory A Nuclear Watchkeepers<br />
Shortfall of 53 Watchkeepers out of 271 - a shortfall of 24%<br />
<br />
Cat B Nuclear Watchkeepers<br />
A shortfall of 77 Watchkeepers out of 417 a shortfall of 18%
</p>
]]></description>
		 <pubDate>2008-09-10 14:00</pubDate>
		</item>
		</channel></rss>