I Don't know... But Maybe...
Posted: Monday, 04 December 2006 |
Comments
Sorry, but I must protest. I know nuclear power has a lot to answer for and for that it takes many beatings. However, you now seem able to link, or make a simile of, the terrible Bhopal accident and a nuclear power station 鈥 and again you mention 鈥榖offins鈥 as though incompetent and the ones never to believe. That is outragoesu and as an ex-nuclear 鈥榖offin鈥 I am somewhat offended. And as someone who has examined the Bhopal disaster in some detail I am somewhat offended on behalf of Union Carbide鈥檚 鈥榖offins鈥 - who reported to their management that the plant at Bhopal was unsafe. Unfortunately 鈥榖offins鈥 don鈥檛 run global mega-dollar-making multi-national corporations where share-holder profits come first. Managers and other 鈥楤鈥 ark numpties made the decision NOT to make safe the plant. If boffins did run the world.....鈥? One of the conclusions of the Bhopal accident investigations states 鈥 鈥淩eports issued months before the incident by scientists within the Union Carbide corporation warned of the possibility of an accident almost identical to that which occurred in Bhopal . The reports were ignored outright and never made it to senior staff鈥. Should you wish to read a bit more, look at this synopsis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster And another thing often forgotten 鈥 Many chemical products we make NEVER decay. Dioxin being just one, it will ALWAYS be with us. At least nuclear waste, no matter how unpleasant it is (and it is), eventually decays. It is well understood that after just 20 half-lives a radioactive nuclide is no longer deemed radioactive but has decayed to a stable and safe state. Even though that statement is quite outrageous in terms of our life vs the half life of many nuclear nasties, the crap produced by many chemical plants can鈥檛 compete with this wonderful, naturally occurring phenomenon. The waste legacy of the nuclear industry will one day all be gone 鈥 something the chemical industry is quite jealous of.
Tony from Coll
do you suffer from seasonal sadness - i have been looking at your blogs which seem to have a seasonal pattern to them ? try getting one of those fancy electric lights to look at - it might help.
lonelyboy15 from NR 50 56
Tony, I had a quick read at your comment and you are obviously very much more clued up about such subjects as I brought up in my blog. I certainly can't write with the authority that you do, except to express what I'm afraid of as regards the future of this country and the world, and many people are just as I apprehensive. The nuclear power issue again, it is purely because of the latent and possibly volatile nature of this energy that we are concerned, and accidents plus near accidents have happened from time to time. I notice you mention radioactive material decays sooner than than the novice is lead to think. Anyway Possibly due to lack of knowledge of your kind, I must continue to be somewhat afraid of a nuclear future Just in the same way as Atom tests startled me in the past. I'm sorry that I can't deal with your excellent piece of writing in detail at the moment, but I hope to keep in touch. Hope you get this reply. It would be a pity to stifle the flow of thought having commenced with much interest.
Island Wanderer from from Tiree
IW, Thanks for your reply. I was probably over harsh in my comments to you and any anger should be aimed at the political system which has led us all to believe that nuclear power is dangerous. There have been 3 major nuclear accidents in the world. The first was the Windscale fire in 1957 where an atomic pile making NO electricity, only atomic bomb materials, caught fire and contaminated Cumbria and Southern Scotland. The second was in 1979 when a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island Power Station (TMI) in USA had a partial melt-down - BUT being of sound engineering and design this reactor had what is called a SECONDARY CONTAINMENT VESSEL. And it did just that, exactly as it said on the label, it contained the fault and there was NO significant leak of radioactivity outside the plant ! TMI was a financial disaster but no-one was killed or suffered an over-dose of radiation. The reactor was a write-off. The Third was, of course, Chernobyl in 1986. However, Chernobyl was NOT primarily a nuclear power station. Yes, it produced electricity and a lot of it but it's PRIME purpose was to make weapons grade bomb material. Governments and the press don't say this. Governments don't say this because we may all start asking about where our bomb material comes from, and the press don't say it because the subtlety of the physics/engineering of the Ukraine reactor is just that - too subtle. However, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) in their report on the Chernobyl disaster does say this - and it is about the only place I have found that does. The IAEA are the world's experts on these things with no political bent and with no need for tabloid headlines. So, yes, nuclear is dangerous and there have been 3 major accidents. The two accidents that spread contamination over the planet can be directly attributed to the military desire for nuclear bombs. The one accident that was safely contained and effected nobody was that of a power station. I suggest that if we study the long history (50 years) of 鈥榥uclear鈥 we do so subjectively and with less ill-informed emotion. I blame government for this but understand their desire for hush-hush as we might all start talking about nuclear weapons again, and that would never do. PS. My involvement as a 鈥榖offin鈥 in the nuclear industry was 20 odd years studying reactor accidents, potential reactor accidents and the back engineering of reactor emergency systems to ensure that should something go wrong 鈥 it does so in a controlled, understood and safe manner. I have studied in detail the accident records of probably every nuclear accident and close call there has been. There was once many of us in the UK civil nuclear programme, often recruited (late 60鈥檚) because of our cynical views towards nuclear power and/or anti nuclear weapons stances. That was until Thatcher saw fit to get rid of us, we weren鈥檛 cost effective. That I find very worrying.
Tony from Coll
I have always felt that nuclear power, just like everything else we magical medddlesome creatures devise, is inherently safe. It"s just that magical and meddlesome as we are we can't help trying to do a little bit more just to see what will happen. Which is when we get pennicilin if we are lucky and Chernobyl if we are not.
Hyper-Borean from Almost in sight of Dounreay
what u talking about
megan from me
RSS Feed