The sad news came in an e-mail this morning. Hugh Richards died yesterday. A message from his wife Mag read. 'He died at home. However, it was a peaceful death in his own bed listening to music. I know you will be upset as we all 'go back a long way'.
Hugh had written to his close friends a few weeks ago explaining that his bone marrow cancer was terminal. In my recent book The Unusual Suspect I wrote about the first time I met Hugh and Mag.
' I had linked up in April 1980 with organic farmer Peter Segar and environmentalists Hugh and Mag Richards to found the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance (WANA). The Welsh Anti-Nuclear Campaign would have been a better title but the acronym was problematic.
WANA was a respite from my work as a councillor. It was pure joy to co-
operate with people who were driven by unselfish idealistic convictions,
free from ambition for office or civic regard. WANA was incredibly
successful. A tiny group of bright people measurably changed public
opinion in Wales on nuclear power. The campaign to persuade all Welsh
local authorities to declare themselves to be ‘nuclear-free zones’ was
brilliantly conceived and executed. WANA was also profitable, through
selling badges and car stickers. A rare achievement for a protest group'.
Hugh has kept the anti-nuclear movement inspired and informed for 30 years. He was tireless, resourceful and a brilliant researcher. He was also a wonderful, affable and entertaining companion. WANA achieved great things, changed the opinion of the Welsh nation and was commercially successful. Only once can I remember Hugh express some exasperation at a task that WANA gave to him. To illustrate the resurgence of the spirit on Wales after the demise of coal we staged a stunt in which a dragon emerged from an egg discovered in a Welsh deep mine. Ordering an inflatable giant dragon was simple.
Hugh task was tricky. He rang me and asked 'How exactly do you make a 12 foot high egg?' I didn't help, Hugh managed. The dragon emerged triumphantly as arranged at a Welsh Pit from Hugh's magnificent egg.
This letter from his friends was sent to Hugh a few weeks ago. Mag said he greatly appreciated the sentiments.
We are all deeply sad to hear your news. The combination of fortitude, pragmatism and resignation you have shown these past few years has been impressive and inspirational.
Over this time you have managed to sustain a prodigious contribution to the anti-nuclear movement. We are especially appreciative that you have generously shared your analysis widely, which has proved invaluable. Your work on repository footprint, spent fuel management and high burn up fuel is based on careful research and thoughtful analysis. It has demonstrated that the nuclear industry’s plans for long-term management of new build wastes are quite literally unsustainable. This work is seminal and will continue to play a major part in undermining the scientific and ethical basis for any expansion of the nuclear industry.
We want you to know how much your work is appreciated by those of us who are campaigning against the further development of the nuclear industry and its plans for nuclear waste management. We intend to ensure that its influence on the debate continues undiminished even if you are unable to continue your work. Your legacy may well have a long half-life.
Many of us have come to know and appreciate you, not only as a doughty and indefatigable campaigner but as a person - for your humour, your guts and above all your humanity.
We intend to mark the work you have done by a lecture in your name. We think this is an appropriate way to give some continuity to your efforts. But, in other ways, too, inspired by your example, we intend to carry the fight to a successful conclusion. We know this is your greatest wish.
We also recognise the tremendous support that Maggs has given you throughout this difficult time which has contributed so much to your ability to continue your work.
Hugh, thank you for everything you have done to help make the world a better place. It has been truly a pleasure and a privilege to know you.
In gratitude from
Andy Blowers, Pete Wilkinson, David Lowry, Rachel Western, Phil Davies, Jill Sutcliffe, Val Mainwood & Pete Roche
(Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates)
Crispin Aubrey
Kate Hudson, CND
Dawn Rothwell, CND
Jill Gough, CND Cymru
Chris Gifford
Paul Flynn MP
Max Wallis
June Birch, Inside Outsider Publications
Phil Steele, PAWB
Linda Rogers, PAWB
Sioned Huws, PAWB
Carl Iwan Clowes, PAWB
Gerry Wolff, Energy Fair
Deborah Ardizzone
Jean Mcsorely, Greenpeace
Ben Ayliffe, Greenpeace
Kenny MacDougall, Hunterston Site stakeholders group
Marianne Birkby, Radiation Free Lakeland
Bill Howard, BNFL Decommissioning Dialogue
Helen Wallace, Genewatch
An illustration of Hugh's campaigning influence is in this story.
Jane Davidson calls for public inquiry into nuclear power
Aug 14 2009 by Martin Shipton, Western Mail
ENVIRONMENT Minister Jane Davidson has thrown down the gauntlet to the UK Government by calling for a public inquiry into plans that could see a new nuclear power station built in Wales.
The UK Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, which backs new nuclear power plants and will decide whether they should be built, is considering whether a public inquiry is necessary.
In Anglesey, there is strong support for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, where an existing facility is being decommissioned. But environmentalists have serious concerns about the storage of nuclear waste.
In a letter to Hugh Richards, a leading member of the campaign group WANA (the Welsh Anti- Nuclear Alliance), Ms Davidson said that she is prepared to support his call for a public inquiry.
She said that while she has no power to call a public inquiry relating to nuclear issues herself, she does have the right to make representations to the UK Secretary of State.
“You will be aware that DECC has recently consulted on an application by the Nuclear Industry Association for EU regulatory justification of new nuclear reactor designs in the UK,” she stated.
“I have carefully considered the points raised in that consultation and other matters and I have written to the DECC Minister supporting a public inquiry for the proposed new nuclear reactors on the grounds of concerns over the safety and security of the management of future radioactive waste.”
A spokesman for DECC said that Energy Minister Lord Hunt has replied to Ms Davidson’s letter and would not make a final decision on holding a public inquiry until the end of the regulatory process.
He said: “Lord Hunt has replied to Jane Davidson, outlining the following points:
Justification regulations provide for an inquiry or other hearing as one of a range of possible steps which the Secretary of State can take if he considers it expedient to do so in connection with the exercise of any of his functions under the regulations;
We have received a number of calls for a public inquiry as part of the regulatory justification process and have considered them carefully;
At this stage, we have not concluded that it is necessary to hold an inquiry or other hearing as part of the regulatory justification process;
However, we will continue to keep this under review during the rest of the process, including when we consider responses to the consultation on the justifying authority’s proposed decision later this year, and do not propose to make a final decision on holding an inquiry or other hearing until the end of the process.”
Mr Richards said: “We are very pleased that Jane Davidson has made representations to DECC saying there should be a public inquiry. In doing so, she is seeking to insist on due diligence.
“DECC is in a difficult legal position. If it does not call a public inquiry, it will open itself up to legal challenge.
“One of the very serious concerns is that the kind of reactors being proposed would require nuclear waste to cool down for a century before it could be stored underground. It is vital that these issues are properly debated in a public forum – and that means there must be a public inquiry.
On a blog last year I gave an example of Hugh's work:
A trillion seconds
This is staggering. We politicians glibly use the word 'trillion' without really knowing what those lines of zeros mean. My friend Hugh Richards has helpfully explained.
A guide to the use of language at the G20.
What's the difference between a million, a billion, a trillion?
A million seconds is 11.57 days.
A billion seconds is 31 years.
A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.Western civilisation has not been around a trillion seconds.
One trillion seconds ago - 31,688 years was well before the peak of the last
ice age (20,000 years ago).
A million minutes ago was - 1 year, 329 days, 10 hours and 40 minutes ago.
A billion minutes ago was just after the time of Christ.
A trillion minutes ago was 1,901,280 years ago, Homo Erectus was just
emerging, and lasted a further 1,500,000 years. Homo Sapiens started to develop about 100,000 years ago.
A trillion pounds is so large a number that only politicians can use the term in conversation... probably because they seldom think about what they are really saying.
If they start using the T word, we are in very deep trouble.
The official national debt is £950bn. Or about a trillion pounds.
I hope there's an understanding of just what a problem this is. Either a lot of money has to be found to pay it, or the value of a pound has to be seriously devalued. Either way will cause very much pain. There is absolutely no way to avoid this.
Posted by: Kay Tie | August 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM
"Work fascinates me." I can look at it for hours! " realy ?
Posted by: cheap chanel handbags | November 09, 2010 at 09:00 AM
Making use of proven mass media like television, newspapers, radio or online resources, sports events usually crosses over social boundaries such as nationality or language.
Posted by: golf shafts | January 31, 2011 at 04:14 PM