So-called low and intermediate-level radioactive waste (LILW) accounts for 99% of the total amount of radioactive waste (Source: OECD-NEA, 2003). This waste includes protective shoe covers and clothing, cleaning materials like rags and mops, reactor water treatment residues, filters, resins, valves, plastic film and fabrics, etc. A large percentage of it results from the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors or from regular maintenance.

This waste is not dangerous to handle, but must be disposed of more carefully than normal waste. Its level of radioactivity decreases with time, losing 50% of its radioactivity every 30 years; after less than 300 years 90% will have decreased to below the level of naturally-occurring radioactivity.o-called high-level highly radioactive waste must be handled with extreme caution and is managed and stored safely by the nuclear industry until its level of radioactivity drops to that found in the natural environment. This category of waste accounts for only 1% of total radioactive waste produced, but represents 96% of the radioactivity (Source: OECD-NEA, 2003). It results either from the presence irretrievable radioactive materials contained in spent fuel from nuclear power plants (NPPs) and research reactors, or from spent fuel reprocessing. It must be isolated and stored for tens o hundreds of thousands of years before its level of radioactivity drops to that found in the natural environment.

Nuclear power is the only energy-producing industry that takes full responsibility for all of its waste and costs this into the price of the end product.

Solutions exist for all the radioactive waste that the nuclear industry produces and there are various different ways of handling and storing the radioactive waste, depending on the type of waste in question. Once it has been properly conditioned, low and intermediate level waste is stored in surface or near surface storage facilities.

For the high-level waste, there is broad consensus in Europe that deep geological disposal is the best applicable technical solution. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and France have taken the political decision to assess the deep geological disposal option and are close to authorising the construction and starting up of sites. Switzerland and France are still in the process of selecting a site for the facility. Other countries are actively considering this option. The rock formations most studied for deep disposal are clay (in Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland), crystalline bedrock (Sweden, Finland and Switzerland) and salt (Germany). Posiva, a Finnish company responsible for the final disposal of plants owners' spent fuel is building a final disposal facility that is scheduled to start operating in 2020 on Olkiluoto Island. SKB, Sweden's nuclear fuel and waste management company, decided in 2009 to build its final repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark.

The EC's recently adopted Council Directive establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste provided for the first time a Community-wide legal framework that imposes the legal responsibility on all EU Member States to manage safely and sustainably all their radioactive waste.

Every activity of modern society generates waste. Whether industrial, scientific or medical, nuclear activities are no exception to the rule and some of the waste they produce is inevitably radioactive. Sometimes they are considerably more radioactive than substances that are naturally present in the environment.

Around 50,000 m3 of radioactive waste are produced per year in the EU (*). This is equal to 90 cm3 per person per year (or 0.9dl, which is equivalent to a less than a glass of water)), compared with 100 kg per person per year of toxic waste (pesticide residues, heavy metals, asbestos and contaminated hospital wastes...).

The expected volume of radioactive waste that will be produced in the future is decreasing as a result of improved waste practices and new reactor design (**).

Once it has been properly conditioned radioactive waste is stored in specially designed storage or disposal facilities. As the waste is inert, there is insignificant risk to human health or the environment.

(*) The total annual production of industrial waste in the EU is 1 billion m3. Of this amount toxic industrial waste accounts for approximately 10 million m3, total radioactive waste for 50,000 m3 and highly active radioactive waste 500 m³.

(**) During the past 15 years, French nuclear power plants in operation have halved the amount of radioactive waste (including low, intermediate and high-level radioactive waste) that they produce, from 200 m³ to 100 m³ per unit per year.

The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), in Japan, resulted from two consecutive, exceptional natural phenomena, the second one a consequence of the first – a massive (8.9 on the Richter scale) earthquake and an unprecedentedly destructive tsunami.

But what are the chances of a Fukushima style event occurring in Europe? European nuclear plant designs include consideration of significant natural events such as floods, storms, and earthquakes. It is important not to extrapolate earthquake and tsunami data from one location of the world to another when evaluating these potential external events. The likelihood of such events occurring varies considerably according to the regional tectonic and geological fault lines. Existing seismic design criteria of European installations provide adequate protection given the identified seismic risks in Europe.

As a result of the Fukushima accident, all nuclear facilities in Europe will undergo, by the end of 2011, a series of very strict risk assessment procedures (stress tests) to evaluate their behaviour in relation to "design basis" and "beyond design basis" exterior events. The aim is to verify nuclear power plants' robustness and, if necessary, to further upgrade their safety. All the necessary controls and remedial measures will be put in place to ensure that nuclear NPPs continue to exhibit the highest possible level of safety.

Safety remains the European nuclear industry's top priority. It covers the technical and organisational measures taken at all stages of the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of the facilities. It ensures the normal operation of those facilities, limits their impact on human health and the environment and prevents accidents. Another example of the industry's constant preoccupation with safety is the presence at NPPs of highly qualified and trained personnel.

Risk prevention, surveillance and the construction of successive physical barriers to minimize the release of radioactive materials to the environment should a major accident occur all contribute to the industry's safety measures.

Nuclear facilities are operated under the strict control of national regulatory authorities and international organisations, like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The nuclear industry is the most regulated of all industries.

Measurements of radiation dose levels that have been carried out ever since the accident occurred have indicated that the confirmed Chernobyl-related health effects have not been as substantial as initially feared. Scientists did not observe serious negative health impacts linked to the accident in the general population in surroundings areas, nor did they find widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, except for in a few exceptional, restricted areas.

50 people died as an immediate consequence of the accident. Among the 200,000 workers were exposed to high-level radiation doses from 1986 to 1987, an estimated 2,200 radiation-related deaths can be expected during their lifetime. A report published by the IAEA and the World Health Organisation (WHO) entitled the Chernobyl Forum Report), which was published in 2005, concludes that up to 4,000 people could eventually die prematurely of radiation exposure resulting from the accident. According to the WHO Expert Group, additional cancer-related deaths due to radiation exposure are 3% higher than the normal incidence of cancers due to all causes.

At the Chernobyl NPP a more secure and permanent confinement structure will be built around the sarcophagus which covers the remains of the damaged unit. This will help to ensure that there is even less chance of serious health impacts occurring in the future.

Safety is the European nuclear industry's top priority. Maintaining a high level of safety is non-negotiable for the long-term operation of plants, for new build projects and for gaining public acceptance of and confidence in nuclear technology.

Every year nuclear operators invest a huge amount of capital and human resources, and effort, into improving safety at their plants.

Safety also goes hand in hand with economic performance: the next generation of reactors designed with increased safer as a prerequisite, as well as being even more competitive. An NPP cannot operate successfully unless its priority is optimal safety at all times.

NPPs are operated under the strict control of national regulatory authorities, who make sure that operators are making the required investments in order to guarantee optimal safety at their plants.

The transportation of radioactive materials, whether by road, rail or sea, is carried out under strict regulatory control and has maintained an excellent safety record. The highest possible safety standards, covering all modes of transport, are enforced at all times, in accordance with internationally agreed standards.

Since the start of the nuclear industrial era, some 45 years ago, there has never been a transport accident resulting in the injury or death of an individual due to the radioactive nature of the cargo transported (*). Nor has there ever been any resultant impact on public health or the environment.

Regulations applied to the transport of radioactive materials are designed to ensure that the risks to public health and the environment are negligible. For additional information consult the website of the World Nuclear Transport Institute (WNTI)

(*) In the past 40 years, about 30,000 tonnes of spent as well as new nuclear fuel have been transported safely around the world, across distances totalling more than 25 million kilometres – by road, rail and sea. There are more than 10 million transports of radioactive material around the world each year. Most involve packages containing radioisotopes used in medicine, industry, agriculture or scientific research.

While no industrial facility can ever realistically claim to be 100% invulnerable to an act of terrorism, the very nature of the nuclear industry and the stringent safeguards and controls to which it is subjected make it among the securest of all industries that could potentially be the target of a terrorist attack. Extensive ²measures have been implemented to ensure that NPPs are as safe as possible from such an eventuality. Among these measures are:

• the segregation of NPPs with secure perimeter fencing

• the physical protection of all nuclear materials with multiple barriers and shield walls

• the shielding of facilities containing highly radioactive materials by thick concrete walls that give significant protection against impact from aircraft or explosions

• the guarding of sites by trained external security personnel

• the close vetting of all personnel (especially those in sensitive areas)

• the strictest possible security procedures regarding access to a nuclear facility

• the continuous reviewing and strengthening of existing measures and procedures

Furthermore, strict military surveillance of the skies reinforces security measures. These procedures, measures and safeguards have been increased since the tragic events of 9/11occurred, ten years ago.

The nuclear industry has always focused on applying nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes, namely generating electricity or manufacturing medical isotopes for use in treating diseases like cancer. The nuclear industry is among the most strictly regulated and controlled of all industries. Because of these controls every stage of the process for generating electricity from nuclear energy poses no threat of proliferation. Enrichment facilities that produce uranium fuel for commercial reactors do not produce the highly-enriched uranium needed to make nuclear weapons. The reactors used in nuclear power plants are totally unsuitable for producing weapons grade plutonium. Facilities responsible for managing the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel are also subject to the strictest safeguards and checks.

It is very important to make a clear distinction between the civil and military applications of nuclear technology. Some countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) could, in theory, still use it to produce nuclear weapons. The vast majority of countries (almost 200) have signed up to the NPT as a sign of their commitment to prevent proliferation. The strictest possible national and international controls and monitoring processes, carried out in accordance with Euratom and the IAEA safeguards, are carried out to ensure that it doesn't happen. The highest standards of security, containment and surveillance are maintained at all times.

The Fukushima accident in Japan has had an impact on public opinion worldwide. However, though it is very difficult to assess this impact in the long-term, we can already say that the results of opinion polls carried out throughout the European Union after the event show that it is very country specific. In some countries like Germany and Switzerland opposition to nuclear has risen sharply, while in others where new build plans are under way, like the United Kingdom or France, a majority of the population still backs the use of nuclear power.

Before the Fukushima accident occurred public acceptance was increasing. The most recent Eurobarometer on Radioactive Waste, which was published by the EC in 2008, showed that there were almost as many citizens in favour of nuclear energy (44%) as against it (45%). It also showed that 62% agree that one of the main advantages of nuclear energy is that it produces less greenhouse gas emissions than coal, gas and oil. 64% of EU citizens believe that nuclear energy enables European countries to diversify their energy sources, and 63% believe that using more nuclear energy would help reduce Europe's dependency upon oil.

The Eurobarometer on Nuclear Safety, which was published by the EC in 2010, showed that 56% of EU citizens want nuclear energy to be maintained or increased (up 8% on the 2007 survey results).The survey highlighted the huge gap that exists between the views expressed in countries with an anti-nuclear culture - such as Austria, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal - and those in countries where support for nuclear is strong, like Hungary (63%), Sweden (62%), the Czech Republic (64%) and Lithuania (64%). The Eurobarometer on Nuclear Safety revealed that 68% believe that using more nuclear energy would make Europe less dependent on fuel imports and 51% think that it helps ensure stable prices.

The next Eurobarometer on Nuclear Waste will be published by the EC in spring 2012 will provide an updated view of what European citizens think about nuclear energy after the Fukushima accident. However, a global opinion poll conducted in May 2011 by Ipsos-MORI suggests that in nine countries out of the 27 EU Member States, the event has influenced less than one fifth of those opposed to nuclear.

The accident at Fukushima triggered considerable political and public reaction across Europe and rightly focused public opinion on the question of nuclear safety. Germany has turned its back on nuclear energy and other countries are reviewing their nuclear policy or waiting for the results of the "stress tests" (safety risk assessments) that will be carried out at all of Europe's nuclear facilities in the wake of Fukushima.

Such events do not, however, signal the general decline of nuclear energy in Europe. Most countries' new build programmes remain unaffected. Indeed, six nuclear power plants remain under construction in France, Finland, Slovakia and Romania and others are being planned in Finland, the UK, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Poland. The Hungarian parliament adopted recently a proposal to double the capacity of the country's sole NPP, Paks. The Baltic States have reached an agreement for investing in a plant in their region. In Sweden, the government reversed in June 2010 the country's long standing ban on nuclear energy. In the Netherlands the lifetime of its only nuclear power plant has been extended by 20 years and the construction of a second reactor is being actively considered.

The Fukushima accident has undoubtedly had an impact on public opinion. However, although it is very difficult to assess this impact in the long-term, we can say that the results of opinion polls carried out throughout the European Union after the event show that it is very country specific. In some countries like Germany and Switzerland opposition to nuclear has risen sharply, while in other where new build plans are under way, like the UK or France, a majority of the population still backs the use of nuclear power.

So, in spite of obvious concerns and fundamental issues raised by Fukushima, there is no sign either of a generalised decline of nuclear energy, or of a collapse in public support. What's more, the continued exportation of nuclear technology and expertise from Europe to countries across the world (including the US, China and India) is further evidence of the global uptake of interest in nuclear energy.

In recent years the number of young people choosing to study physics and engineering at school and university level or opting for a career in nuclear research or industry has gradually started to increase again after years of stagnation and decline that followed the Chernobyl disaster.

When the industry was in the doldrums there was an inevitable perception among young people that a career in nuclear science and engineering was not a progressive option. Now that the nuclear revival has gathered momentum that perception has changed.

A career in nuclear research and engineering is once again appearing on young people's radar screen as the industry starts to recruit more intensively.

The National Skills Academy for Nuclear Industry (NSANI) in the UK has recently been created and a new Centre for Nuclear Energy Technology is being created there too. A joint-initiative of six European companies (Areva, Axpo AG, EnBW, E.ON, URENCO and Vattenfall), the European Nuclear Energy Leadership Academy (ENELA) launched in 2010 aims at educating tomorrow's European nuclear leaders. Similar initiatives are being planned in other countries, including in the US. The nuclear revival will lead to the emergence of a new generation of scientists, engineers and managers to lead the industry and research sectors.

In its 2009 edition of Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period to 2030, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revised its projections for the future of nuclear power globally upwards to between 511 gigawatts (some 37 % higher than today's 372 gigawatts) in the low-case scenario and 807 gigawatts in the high-case scenario of installed nuclear capacity by 2030. Furthermore, many countries are planning to increase the lifetime of their plants.

There are three major reasons why the financial crisis is unlikely to halt the global expansion of nuclear: First of all nuclear energy is one of the most competitive sources of electricity. According to the aforementioned Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period to 2030, when the generating costs (capital cost and construction costs, life-time operating and maintenance costs and fuel provision costs) of the different energy sources - including carbon dioxide - are taken into account, nuclear power competes very favourably with other sources.

Some countries in the EU are increasingly dependent upon gas imports from Russia and Algeria. If the EU wants to preserve its energy independency and secure its energy supply, it is crucial for it to have alternative sources at its disposal.

Nuclear energy is a long term investment and, therefore, a safe and profitable one. It takes around ten years for a new plant to come into operation. Once the project has been decided, it takes around five years for the administrative procedure (licensing, Environmental Impact Assessment...) and five to six years to actually build it. A plant can be operated for sixty years. Lifetime extensions of NPPs are much more profitable than shut-downs; the world should see considerably less closures than anticipated.

While recognising the role of renewables in the energy mix, nuclear power is more effective when it comes to ensuring reliable electricity supply. Indeed, most nuclear power plants operate continuously as a base-load with very high capacity factors, as they are normally only stopped for refuelling and regular maintenance. The average capacity factor of NPPs in the EU is more than 80 %. For the European industry, in particular energy intensive industries, stable, affordable and reliable electricity supply is of paramount importance to boost economic growth and create jobs in the EU.

Furthermore, nuclear plants are not always funded by public money. On the contrary most of the nuclear units currently under construction in Europe or about to be built are financed by private funds. In Finland, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor currently under construction are financed by a Finnish consortium of large electricity users. In the UK, the conclusions of the Nuclear White Paper indicate that nuclear new build will be funded by private investors.

All low-carbon energy sources are needed in order to meet the growing demand for electricity, while fighting climate change. Removing any option from the energy mix would diminish diversity and, as a result, hinder security of supply. Nuclear energy can effectively address these challenges. It is, therefore, an important part of the solution.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OECD-NEA study, Projected costs of generating electricity, 2010 edition, shows that in the low discount rate (at 5% discount rate), more capital intensive, low-carbon technologies like nuclear energy are the most competitive solutions.

The study compares the generating costs of the following energy sources: nuclear, coal, gas and onshore wind. The generating cost analysis took into account the price of carbon. Thus, the results incorporate for the first time a carbon price of 22€ per tonne of carbon dioxide.

Clearly, as nuclear is a major low-carbon energy source, its electricity generating cost is more competitive than that of fossil fuels. When carbon price rises are taken into account, the cost of nuclear remains unaffected. Offshore wind is even cheaper, but there is no base-load energy when the wind doesn't blow.

The IEA/OECD-NEA study analyses generating costs (at low and high discount rates) at each major stage in the generating life-cycle, i.e. initial investment and construction costs, life-time operating and maintenance costs and fuel provision costs. Statistics show that generating electricity from nuclear energy involves a major initial capital cost for the construction of the NPP, but that once built an NPP can operate at a very high capacity level for up to 60 years (compared to 30 years for gas-fired power plants, 40 years for coal-fired power plants and 25 years for wind and solar plants). This means that the initial investment can be written off before the end of the plant's operational lifetime.

Another important consideration is that for nuclear energy the cost of decommissioning (15% of construction costs) is calculated as part of the initial capital cost, which explains why it is so high. Fuel provision costs are lower than those for coal, gas and oil. Uranium accounts for only 5% of the overall nuclear generating costs, while the whole uranium fuel cycle (including mining, enrichment, conversion and waste management) accounts for only 15%. Because uranium is mined in economically and politically stable countries, like Australia and Canada, the price is less likely to fluctuate as a result.

The new generation of reactors ("Generation IV"), which should be operational between 2030 and 2050, will bring economic benefits. These include reduced construction periods, reduced capital costs, higher capacity factors, longer operating lifetimes, higher burn-up to reduce fuel costs and the production of less radioactive waste.

In the past low market prices for uranium meant that there was little incentive to start up new mining operations or increase existing operations. Today, however, new mining operations are being planned in, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Kazakhstan, Namibia and Niger. Existing mines are also increasing their current output. The increased demand for uranium reflects the global nuclear revival and there is every indication that there are enough supplies of uranium to meet demand.

The 23rd edition of the so-called "red book", Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand, which was published in July 2010 by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), shows that total identified resources of uranium are sufficient to supply worldwide nuclear power plants at 2008 consumption rates for over a century. The report found that uranium resources, production and demand are all growing. Since many countries are considering building new units, exploration efforts have increased recently and have resulted in important discoveries and identification of new resources: the amount of identified uranium that can be economically mined rose to 6,306,300 tonnes (+15% compared to 2007). Even in the high-growth scenario to 2035 (IAEA projections for the future of nuclear power: expansion up to 785 GWe by 2035), less than half of today's identified resources would be necessary to meet demand.

In addition, further uranium exploration, the use of unconventional resources and fast reactors can also greatly increase the longevity of nuclear fuel resources, thereby sustaining nuclear energy production for a long time to come.

Nuclear supports the three pillars of sustainable development (*) and of the Lisbon agenda: environmental, economic and social. From an environmental perspective, nuclear power does not emit any of the greenhouse gases (GHG) that are responsible for provoking climate change, most notably carbon dioxide. Consequently, it mitigates environmental damage while supporting Europe's drive to achieve a low-carbon economy. Furthermore, nuclear energy does not emit sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, two key agents in the creation of acid rain and photochemical air pollution. If nuclear energy were phased out completely in favour of fossil fuels approximately 700 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide, 6 million extra tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 3 million extra tonnes of nitrogen oxide would be produced, thereby increasing the atmospheric pollution.

Almost all the waste is contained and isolated from the environment. The costs of waste management are included in the price of electricity. New generation nuclear plants are designed to produce less waste than before. Nuclear energy is environmentally sustainable.

Nuclear energy also provides reliable electricity at stable prices. Nuclear power is a proven, large-scale generator of electricity, satisfying a modern economy's significant demand for electricity that must be available around the clock. The industry also ensures electricity price stability for long periods of time (see questions on economics of nuclear). Nuclear electricity requires a much smaller amount of fuel to generate an equivalent amount of electricity than fossil fuels do. Furthermore, uranium is available from politically stable countries. As a result, it provides stable and affordable electricity. The nuclear industry also provides approximately 500,000 highly skilled jobs in Europe that add value to the overall employment market. The industry uses a wide variety of skills and processes, including mining, milling, engineering and construction, plant operation and decommissioning. Other applications of nuclear technology also improve societal well-being, for instance medical and agricultural applications.

(*) Sustainable development was defined by the Brundtland Commission as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs". The Lisbon Agenda, which was set out by the European Council in Lisbon on March 2000, is a roadmap to make EU's economy more sustainable. It aims to make the EU "the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment by 2010".

Technologies such as renewables - though equally important - cannot provide all the electricity needed to sustain economic growth because, e.g. the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. A reliable base-load energy source is needed and preferably a low carbon-one. Nuclear power is a proven, large-scale generator of electricity, satisfying a modern economy's significant demand for electricity that must be available 24 hours a day. Indeed, most nuclear power plants operate continuously as a base-load with very high capacity factors, as they are normally only stopped for refuelling and regular maintenance. The average operational factor in the EU is more than 80 %. For the European industry, in particular energy intensive industries, stable and reliable electricity supply is of paramount importance to boost economic growth and create jobs in the EU.

All low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear power and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydro...), are needed in order to meet the soaring demand for electricity, while fighting climate change.

Electricity generation by nuclear power plants, unlike fossil fuel, does not generate carbon dioxide (*), which is a greenhouse gas.

Nuclear energy makes a significant contribution to the lowering of carbon emissions from the energy sector in the EU and worldwide. The current use of nuclear energy (about 15% of the world's electricity generation; 28% of Europe's electricity generation) avoids the emission of about 2.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent every year. In the EU as a whole, the avoidance levels amount to about 631 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year, taking into account the current (2007) energy mix. By comparison, the EU has a GHG emission reduction target of 446 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent below 1990 level by 2008-2012. To make savings equivalent to those from the use of nuclear power, all passenger cars in the EU (212.5 million) would have to be taken off the roads. Switching to less carbon intensive or low-carbon fuels such as gas, nuclear and renewables will play a major role in reducing emissions.

(*) For example, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear energy GHG emissions from the full energy chain amount to between only 9 and 21 tonnes (expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide -equivalent per GWh of electricity produced) compared to between 385 and 1343 for fossil fuel chains and between 9 and 279 for renewable energy chains.

As is the case with any industrial activity, nuclear power plants (NPPs) have an environmental impact. Nuclear energy has one of the lowest impacts on the environment of any energy source because it does not emit CO2 and isolates its waste from the environment. Nuclear generation does not produce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels and nor does it emit greenhouse gases (GHGs)(*).

Before a new reactor begins operating for the first time, an environmental impact assessment is carried out to examine all potential impacts of the plant's operation on the surrounding community, air quality, water quality, flora and fauna and landscape. Environmental responsibility is an important part of nuclear power plant management. Plants are designed, built and regulated to prevent radioactive emissions. And NPPs voluntarily work to protect local wildlife and their habitats.

Most NPPs are situated along lakes, rivers or sea coastlines because the facilities use water to cool the steam. The cooling water used does not come into contact with the water used in the generating process itself. The heat that is generated is released through the cooling towers (the clouds that originate from the plants are steam produced from water and not smoke) or discharged into the sea, river or the lake, together with the coolant. However, the levels of chemical and radioactive products discharged into the water from the power plant are well below the maximum permissible limits monitored by the public authorities and independent laboratories.

Thanks to the preserved environment and to the empty land that surrounds NPPs they provide natural habitats for birds, mammals and plants. Many nature parks or wildlife sanctuaries have been created. In France, the Chinon NPP is located right in the middle of the regional nature park of "Loire-Anjou-Touraine". In the UK all the nuclear sites of EDF Energy include special areas of conservation or special protection areas. In 2006, Heysham NPP was awarded the Birds Category of the BTO's Business Bird Challenge with 157 bird species recorded; Sizewell B was given a Community Award for its long-standing partnership with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust.

From a climate change perspective, the carbon footprint that the nuclear industry leaves on the environment is minimal because, unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy does not emit the greenhouse gases that cause climate change and environmental degradation.

(*) As a result, many NPPs have obtained environmentally friendly certifications. In France, all 58 reactors have been granted the environmental management certification, ISO 14001. In Finland, TVO has an environmental management system certified under the international ISO 14001:2004 standard. The Olkiluoto NPP is also the only energy producer in Finland to have EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) registration, provided in accordance with EU Regulations and granted by the Finnish Environment Institute. In the United Kingdom, EDF Energy, which operate most of UK's NPPs, are also certified ISO 14001. All EDF's power stations have ISO 14001 certification and most of them have been certified since 1996.

Radiation is one of the natural phenomena that define our universe. The largest source of radiation is the sun, around which our planet revolves and all life evolves. Uranium is an ore and is mined, enriched and used by the nuclear industry to produce nuclear energy, which in turn generates electricity and has led to the development of radiotherapy techniques that have improved medical diagnostics, are helping eradicate cancerous tumours and are saving thousands of lives every day.

However, radiation has obvious inherent risks. If it is not controlled it can be very destructive. Every precaution is made, therefore, to protect human beings from the dangers of radiation. Radiation protection and safety are enshrined in EU legislation, which is based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Fundamental Safety Principles. No industry is more strictly controlled and supervised than the nuclear industry.

The effect of radiation exposure on the human body is measured in units called milisieverts (mSv). The average exposure that someone living close to a nuclear power plant receives in a year is less than 0.01 mSv. This is the same as the exposure a passenger receives during a single transatlantic flight at an altitude of 11,000 m. One chest x-ray exposes a patient to 0.1 mSv. The average amount of natural radioactivity measured in France (Europe's largest nuclear market, with 58 nuclear reactors in operation) in a year is 2.4mSv. The equivalent measurement for India is 6.0mSv. Every time a patient has a medical scan, he or she receives a radiation dose of 10.0 mSv. Put into context, when someone flies to America, has a chest x-ray or a medical scan, or is regularly exposed to the sun, he/she will receive a far greater dose of radiation than if he/she lived close to an NPP.