Thursday, 23 September 2010

Quote of the Day (fission-safety-edition)

Commenter 'Jarlath' makes the case for Wylfa B and Nuclear power in general:

"Then there are the cries that [nuclear power is] not safe, with reference to accidents in the past, a bit like saying I wont fly today because a plane crashed in the sixties, or that I will not buy a car because an old Lada is so unsafe."

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tell that to the people of Chernobyl, who were wheelbarrowing barrows full of concrete to seal the reactor when it went out of control, tell that to the sufferers of cancer who live in clusters around the Power stations, and if you think that argument is all ballocks, go to Wylfa and carry a fluorescent light tube and see what happens to it when you walk near Wylfa. It is a well known fact that if you do, the bulb will actually glow in your hands, so if you are all for Nuclear power, we will give you nuclear power, if you give us the valleys back, that were dammed and flooded to provide Water, one commodity in exchange for another I say.

Anonymous said...

Which means they are perfectly safe to build in or close to major population centres with rivers so as to make them more cost-effective.

Anonymous said...

Yet more wisdom from Thyroid Island!

The Red Flag said...

It is a well known fact that if you do, the bulb will actually glow in your hands

That's the electricity leaking from the cables. You can do the same thing by holdiong a flourescent strip near a leaky microwave oven

Rhiannon said...

It's not a valid argument, because one plane (or one hundred planes) crashing doesn't have the lasting effect that radiation has on the people and on the environment where it happens

It might be a valid argument to say that one nuclear power station is, or might be, safer than another, or that the technology has improved - but I doubt if I'm the only person who felt a bit bovvered when we heard, earlier this year, the news of a fire in a nuclear power station that had taken many hours to get under control. If the fire precautions weren't sufficinet to prevent that happening, what certainty can we have that other safety measures will be sufficient?

Anonymous said...

The equation still doesn't add up - short term jobs and sky high cancer rates for our generation of islanders and a toxic legacy for the next!

Anonymous said...

Anon 19.03
"..tell that to the sufferers of cancer who live in clusters around the Power stations, and if you think that argument is all ballocks, go to Wylfa and carry a fluorescent light tube and see what happens to it when you walk near Wylfa. It is a well known fact that if you do, the bulb will actually glow in your hands, "

Nice rant.

And further to Red Flags comments aren't these clusters found near high voltage pylons/wires as well?

Never mind, you got to peddle some misinformation.

As for the flooded valleys bit. Which valleys on Anglesey were flooded?
Who are the 'we' and 'you' in this bit?
You should have cut it after the Chernobyl point is what I say.

The Red Flag said...

And further to Red Flags comments aren't these clusters found near high voltage pylons/wires as well?

Dunno, and really I don't care either. All I know is flourescent strips will glow anywhere electricity leaks to high enough levels.

My position on nuclear power is the same as another anon's - no subsidies, no tax breaks and all the waste to remain in the UK preferably on site. If that puts lekky bills up through the roof so be it. But no more pretending it's cheap when it isn't

Groundhog Day said...

No indeed nuclear power is not cheap but then neither is wind power. Have you seen the costs associated with these offshore windfarms? And the nub is that they are quite often not producing any lecky at all. In addition these wind farms are subsidised to high heaven.

Anonymous said...

The windfarms, the wave generators, anything to make electricity, the oil reserves are on the way down, the gas is being shipped across Europe, they try to tell us that we have Gas, but the reality is that when the Russians turned the gas top off, the shit hit the fan. Now we all want Nuclear, fair enough, let's have it, but where will they get the money from to pay for it, when the Bank Of Great Britain is skint!

The Great Councillini said...

Well, the rose-tinted view of nuclear is interesting.

See, only yesterday, I was standing by the spot where, back in 1986, I stood as light rain started to fall over the Cefni reservoir, bringing with it a dose of radiation for me and all around. German radio had said earlier in the day that people should stay indoors. Government officials in the UK had swiftly moved to silence a scientist at Bangor Uni who was reporting very high radiation levels. He was reminded of the difficulty in getting grant funding...

I would recommend as a book: 'Voices from Chernobyl', and as a web site, this classic:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Nuclear may not often go wrong, but when it does, it's serious for people over huge swathes of the planet.

Anonymous said...

I remember that time very well, the radiation cloud was pouring across Europe and it was a classic case of Dad's Army " Don't Panic!! " Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do, and that was the reality check, that Western Europe had, that the neighbours in the East, had a dodgy nuclear reactor, the whole power plant imploded and the only means the russians had to stop it, where wheelbarrows full of concrete and the armies of "volunteers" to help bring it under control, times have changed, but the insatiable demand we have for Electricity has not, it's increased, and we need more and more!

Jarlath said...

Yes, Chernobyl was bad, really bad, and yes the affects of that accident still linger on today in the mountains of Wales. But we are not Russia in the 1980’s, with a corrupt communist state. Do not get me wrong nuclear power is not a cheap option, but it is inherently safe, all accidents you can mention where down to known failures by man. Yes, the consequences can be terrible, yes, we need to find somewhere to store the waste, and maybe one day cold fusion will replace it.

However in the short and medium term we have a choice if we want to save humanity from the ravages of global warming, either we need to build new nuclear power stations, or drastically reduce our electricity needs, bye bye green electric cars for a start, especially in cities such as London, where people should just use volume transport systems

Anonymous said...

Saying NP is unsafe is also a bit like saying contaminated water kills people through cholera, therefore I won't drink contaminated water.

Jarlath said...

Anon above said “Which means they are perfectly safe to build in or close to major population centres with rivers so as to make them more cost-effective” –missing a rather crucial fact...

To cool the reactor and make the steam that turns the generators that give us the electricity you need a large amount of water guaranteed, that is why most are built on the coast, or some like Trawsfynydd near large lakes.

Having said that the Israelis have I think build a small nuclear power unit that could be installed in a town to power it. Not that I’m advocating such move, just mentioning it in passing.

Anonymous said...

"if we want to save humanity from the ravages of global warming..."

I'm not a skeptic, but I do increasingly have time for the argument that global climate change as a general phenomenon is nothing new. People have adapted to sudden, dramatic climate change for as long as there have been people and weather.

That's not to say we shouldn't address the CO2 issue; we should. But some of the new reactors proposed for the UK are new and have not yet been approved. So their safety can only be assessed on paper, not from real-world tests.

This is worth considering if you blindly believe that nuclear can never be a health hazard (warning: disturbing but nevertheless true images and descriptions):

http://blogs.newamericamedia.org/kitchen-sink/78/nuclear-nightmares-twenty-years-since-chernobyl

There is plenty on the reality of the legacy of Chernobyl if you can stomach it. Our sanitised media aren't interested, of course.

Anonymous said...

Jarlath, the french have inland reactors built on rivers.

Dazzler said...

hope he gets better for the findings


http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/09/24/ex-anglesey-leader-tribunal-will-go-ahead-55578-27332415/

Jarlath said...

Yes I know,(they use cooling towers, not a cheap or an ideal safe option) and see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

As you can see the majority of France's power is produced by nuclear power

Anonymous said...

Well there you go then Jarlath. If the power is needed in the big cities, build the stations in the big cities.

Prometheuswrites said...

Some points:

1. Carbon trading is a red herring: “Rather than cutting our contribution to global warming by 19% since 1990, as the government boasts, we have increased it by about 29%. It's the same story in most developed nations. Our apparent success results entirely from failures elsewhere”. (From The Guardian)
The environment doesn’t keep a ledger to ‘balance off’ carbon production.

2. “But we are not Russia in the 80’s with a corrupt communist state”. Neither was Three Mile Island.

3. Have you read the health and Safety Plan for Ynys Mon in the event of a major incident at Wylfa? Steven King eat your heart out.

4. No, you could not build a Dinorwic style power generator in Norfolk, as someone else said you need a mountain for your reservoir in order to create the potential energy for conversion into kinetic energy, which is what turns the turbines.

5. It doesn’t matter how safe the system is, it’s generally human error that causes the accidents and there’s plenty of them about (humans that make errors).

6. How about a reactor for the Gower Peninsular – imagine what would be said if that were proposed – but not a dissimilar situation to Ynys Mon - area of outstanding natural beauty, etc, close to areas of low employment and low incomes, etc – but this would an anathema to WAG – we have all been conditioned to accept Wylfa B as it will ‘create jobs and bring money into the area’ – it will create jobs but not for local people (unless the current technicians and operatives of Wylfa decide to hang about the area until Wylfa B is built) – that is if Eon or Horizon don’t decide to use their own technical staff.

Don’t get me wrong. I prefer not to have Wylfa B built, but also realise the very real practicalities facing us all as energy consumers in the short to medium term, for which we will need to have some form of high output electrical generation.

Bring on the Thorium reactors! (in say 10 – 15 years time).

Anonymous said...

"...2. “But we are not Russia in the 80’s with a corrupt communist state”. Neither was Three Mile Island..."


Not far off. Jimmy Carter was the Pres.


Beaten to worse Pres ever by the Almighty World Savious Obama.

Allegedly :-)


Heh, My word verification is commiest!!! Red Flag will be jealous. Heh

The Red Flag said...

Prometheuswrites we have all been conditioned to accept Wylfa B as it will ‘create jobs and bring money into the area’

I have observed that Wylfa tends to split people in to the following groups:-

1. Above all, must be built here at any cost to provide UK energy needs.

2. Must be built here to provide UK energy needs but not subsidised at any stage.

3. Above all, must be built here to provide local employment irrelevant of UK energy needs, subsidies or anything else.

4. Must be built somewhere to provide UK energy needs but must not be subsidised at any stage.

5. Must not be built here, but nuclear is needed to meet UK energy needs so OK to build somewhere else no matter what the cost.

6. Must not be built here, but nuclear is needed to meet UK energy needs so OK to build somewhere else but must not be subsidised.

7. Must not be built here or anywhere else either.

There are very slight variations, but that's the main grouping. I'm in number 4 - I don't care where it's built, but it must not be subsidised anywhere from the first brick laid right through to me turning my telly on.

Anonymous said...

"How about a reactor for the Gower Peninsular [sic]– imagine what would be said if that were proposed "

It's such an exclusive area now that the people are far too influential and far to clever to allow anything of the sort.

Anonymous said...

Some things you never knew about electricity.

1 Most buildings have an underground electricity supply from the local Electricity Board, But churches get theirs direct from God, via enormous " electricity conductors" at the top of their steeple.

2 Mazda, the name on millions of lightbulbs as well as a few crap cars, is in fact the name of the Hindu God of light.

3 And Toshiba is the Hindu God of laptops.

4 Electricity is dangerous. Indeed,it can kill. In fact it was the only thing that could kill TV puppet Captain Scarlet in the series of the same name.

5 There are two types of electric chair. One is a battery powered wheelchair for the elderly or infirm. The other is used by the authorities in America to kill black people.

6 Clive Sinclair in the seventies thought that an electrical oversized roller skate called the sinclair C5 was going to be the very next thing.

Anonymous said...

Oh silly, silly Blue Robed Druid(ess)- how long did you think you could get away with wearing a long flowing robe and not being accused of being a woman! Come, come - pray tell us if you stand up or sit down to pass water o wise one - even if you will not reveal if you dress to the left or to the right (as if we didn't know already!!)

Prometheuswrites said...

"Pembroke power station permit plan not called in".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11459039

"Building work started in May 2009 and the 2000 Mw gas-fired power station is due to be completed in 2012, providing about 100 jobs and energy for more than three million homes".

Will building this power station lessen the likelyhood of Wylfa B?

I wonder where they will be recruiting power generation engineers and technicians from?

The Red Flag said...

energy for more than three million homes".

Three million? That therefore must be the whole of South Wales, as well as Bristol Swindon and more.

Theoretically, if the power remained just in Wales, it would run the whole principality's domestic requirements and then some.