enhanced by
Bookmark:
So who says nuclear power is safe?
#3 Eddie. I think it should all be stored in Bliar's Dome.
This situation is a nightmare, and Blair wants more Nuclear power stations!!
Okay...tell me again why Russian tankers should be allowed to transfer crude oil off the Scottish coast?
Russia's safety record in all industrial sectors is woeful.
#8 Dragonhead, what is China doing to keep Putin treading carefully? Of all countries in the world today, I think Russia fears China the most. The enmity has been simmering for years.Besides, in your first paragraph you say "It has NOTHING to do with the UK, other than that the UK is likely to be the unwilling recipient of Russia's Radiation 'time bomb'." Then, in the last paragraph, you shout "Come on all you loud mouthed Left wing anti-US/UK cabal, where is your CONDEMNATION for a Man and his country, that is likely to do a damned sight more damage to YOUR COUNTRY and it's future generations than George W, has or is ever likely to cause you!?"
You sound a tad confused.
Time to send in the Faslane FacilitatorsThey'll demonstrate and demonstrate till some russian gets P.O'd and disposes of them. TO ALL hippies and general rejects 50p a night to demonstrate (bring your own signs)
#1 - right here - me, 'Conan'; nuclear power has shown itself to be a very safe, efficient and relaibale source of energy - when in the hands of intelligent people.
No 9 Colin P. I dont think it was necessarily Russian Tankers that were going to do the transfers of oil. It was Russian oil apparently but I dont remember russian tankers mentioned. Perhaps I was absent that day.
-- In 2002, the G8 group of rich nations agreed to spend as much as £10 billion securing and decommissioning Russia's nuclear, chemical and biological research sites
It doesn't seem very much money but it's something. What organisation is in charge of all this and what's their progress to date?
It's sad and a tad irritating to hear that we in the UK have to fund some sort of clean-up operation for a country that for the last half of the last century was having "economic miracles" every other year.
Russia came out of WWII pretty well off (compared to the UK) and then for the next 40 years told the world how good their land of utopian dreams was. The truth seems to be they had barely enough ability to wipe their own backside.
Rather than having visionary leaders, it's been a country of 'low-lifes' who seem to have got to positions of power simply by eliminating rivals.
It's a damn shame that we have to share the planet with this kind of filth.
Well that's the Saturday whine finished .... now it's back to work for me !!
Perkins #18 "Russia came out of WWII pretty well off (compared to the UK) "
You obviously had no education in history at all if you can make a statement like that. In WWII the UK, its Empire and all American forces lost less than 2 million dead. Russia lost more than 40 million people and the Germans destroyed everything in a scorched-earth policy as they retreated; every farm, every factory, every bridge, every railway from Moscow to the German border was destroyed and every village annihilated.
WWII was very hard for everyone in the UK who lived through it - but Britain was never invaded. Russia was devastated and the Cold War was the result. And a final thought - the largest German army we ever faced after D Day was 12 German Divisions. The average German force in Russia was 125 Divisions; effectively, Russia won the war by bleeding Germany dry; we merely delivered the coup de grace.
1. James F, Glasgow / 1:42am 2 Jun 2007 So who says nuclear power is safe?
People in their pockets, like Brian (windy) Wilson of the Northbritishperson.
Why did this story instantly become about nothing but the evils of nuclear power?
Cars are causing catastrophic changes in the climate world-wide that might kill billions and we've never developed a way to store their waste either - we just pump it straight into the air and try to forget about it - yet I don't see anyone saying that cars have no future and that we shouldn't have any more cars until we figure out what to do about their waste - a destroyed climate - what a burden THAT is to leave future generations.
The fact is that modern life requires energy and the only way we currently have of generating huge quantities of it at a low price, in a reliable fashion and without destryoing the climate, is nuclear.
As for the inability of Russia's military to properly care for its own nuclear legacy, well that has nothing at all to do with this.
How can a bunch of wet fuel rods hanging around in a damp cave go critical?
#18 & #19 are both correct!
Throughout history Russia has proved itself politically & morally untrustworthy. Having taken every arms subsidy the weak West could give, as gratitude, they vengefully raped their way [UN fig .5millions] across Austria & Germany and enslaved a generation of Eastern Europeans - mainly in non-aligned countries who were victims of Nazi occupation. Austria just escaped in 1955 but neighbouring industrial Czechoslovakia & Hungary are still relatively impoverished.
Sadly our Zionist-controlled media focussed on the Nazi Holocaust - itself an evil act, but ignored Russia's 38 million dead in the purges of the 30's and even more shockingly China's 140 million as a result of the 'Cultural Revolution' of the 60's & 70's. [UN figures]. The same gang are still controlling both countries.
Now they want to wage economic war and a form of blackmail - "pay us to clean up our mess, or we will have an 'accident' and then you will suffer."
The time has come to return to Cold War mores and treat Putin & his mob as cautiously as Molotov, Bulganin,Kruschev, Mao & Stalin etc. Time will tell!
They are a bunch of despicible characters the lot of them.That Putin tries to dictate to us all and the place is just a dump.Churchill was right after the war ,we should have marched them back to Russia.We should stand no more nonsense from this lot and get them to sort out that mess immediately.We had enough with Chernobyl which was down to them and now this.God knows what else?
#22 Fred, a very good question. It would be interesting to see their calculation for the chances of an explosion happening. It sounds fairly unlikely, to say the least.
The rods would have to form a configuration where they create a critical mass. The chances of this happening spontaneously are slim. Then, once the chain reaction starts, they are proposing that seawater might enter, and the enormous heat from the critical mass might thermochemically convert the water to hydrogen & oxygen, and then it might explode. It's a fairly contrived scenario.
As a bare minimum I would hope that they could move the material into such a configuration that a critical mass can't form.
If anything it shows that people can play fast and loose with nuclear material and still be a long way from harming anybody.
Still, they should get it cleaned up.
You shouldn`t tar us with the same brush as the Russians. Our Nuclear industry is safe, and Scotland would be throwing away an opportunity not to produce power from it.
All the pontificating about who did and didn't suffer in the war is all very well, but not germane to the topic.
This is a terrifying story - Chernobyl didn't affect the UK all that badly, but its effects in Russia were horrific.Read the article folks - it's telling you that if this lot goes up, the UK WILL be affected, and badly.
A radioactive cloud over Scotland. Cancers and death - and it doesn't just go away with the first wind.
So what are our politicians doing about it? What is the UN doing about it? Can no pressure be brought to bear on Mr. Putin?
It was agreed to spend £10billion in 2002 - did it get spent? What on? Who's controlling the expenditure?A far as I can see from this article, the Rusians aren't even accepting that the problem exists.Surely this should then be Item Number 1 at the G8 summit, at the UN, at the European Parliament?
Or is everybody afraid of Mr. Putin?
#19 - If you knew your history you would know Russia didn't loose anyone as it didnt exist as a nation state in WW2.
However, I thought the official USSR figure was 20 million (Stalin himself disposed of millions of his ain folk in his purges before, during and after WW2).
What a choice, we suffer some radiation problems or we overheat.
I think I'd prefer the risks posed by nuclear power than the stifling atmosphere created by chopping down trees.
The best place for these power stations is the uninhabitable parts of Scotland where the midges rule OK.
#13: Safe?!Ha!And My Mum is Queen Elizabeth the first! Nuclear power isn't safe,or have you forgotten Chernobyl already?If nuclear power was safe,then the poeple who worked and lived at Dounray wouldn't be suffering from Cancer and Leukemia!If nuclear was safe,Three-mile Island wouldn't have almost blown it's top just like Chernobyl did.Three-mile island doesn't have the same reactor as Chernobyl.It had a perfectly-running reactor,but it still nearly exploded.I don't know about anyone else,but I think that Chernobyl was a sign.Oh yeah,and if nuclear was safe,Chernobyl wouldn't have happened.#22:Why,quite easily.Sea water and Rain water mix with the radioactive waste leaking from the rods and create an uncontrollable explosion.The result could dwarf the effects of Chernobyl. #26:Throwing away an opportunity?Don't you know what happened at Sellafield a few years ago?There was a chemical fire(A fire caused by chemicals,duh)which caused quite alot of radiation to be released.A milk farm nearby had to get rid of all of it's milk,every last drop,and we still couldn't eat lamb.I know that's beside the point,but it's true. The Scottish Nuclear industry is a target for Terrorists.If a plane was flown into Sellafield,the effects of radiation would dwarf Chernobyl by a mile,killing nearly,if not all of us.
I'm sorry that I'm an idiot, I was dropped on my head when I was a baby.
#27 Nell, the problem needs to be addressed, but the article's comparison to Chernobyl is just outright scaremongering.
Even at Chernobyl, apart from the workers who actually put out the fire on the reactor, the radiation dose in the surrounding area did not create much of a cancer risk. The WHO estimated it to be about a 3% increase in cancers in the immediate vicinity - they cannot verify this because the small number of additional cancers cannot be detected among the normal incidence. The increase in mortality for emergency workers in the 30km restricted zone was about 1%. In contrast the current mortality risk from air pollution in London is well over 2%.
#27 - "How badly" is pretty relative. There are still farms which are under restrictions. And we don't know the effect of long term cancers.
#26 Go and research the British nuclear industry (from sources outwith the industry itself and the government), these boards have numerous examples of why the British Nuclear industry cannot be trusted, and why government figures cannot be believed. There are plenty of alternatives out there. There will be NO new nuclear power stations built in Scotland and none in the UK without major subsidy.
Finally I'm going to mention 3 Mile Island. It not in "backward" Russia but in the "advanced" US. All UK "accidents" have been covered up and we only know a fraction of what went on. I don't want to hear arguments that is was way in the past, as at least then the instrumentation wasn't fed through a computer (programmed by a useless IT contractor paid £50 and hour).
That's just what we need some Homer Simpson in a Nuclear power station believing every light and dial. It makes me shudder.
NittonLover., #28.‘If you knew your history you would know Russia didn't loose anyone as it didnt exist as a nation state in WW2.’ Your analysis would then also mean that Scotland doesn’t really exist, as it was eaten up into the larger Great Britain in 1707.
30. Please learn to put a space after your sentences. Your stuff reads like that of a babbling idiot; harder to read than Ulysses.
As usual in the world of 'New Blabber' Government, it's too late.
Russia has the upper hand with it's vast reserves of oil and gas, and along with its other greatest money earning export, 'organised crime', now has the upper hand.
We are caught in a pincer movement, and will be squeezed until we bleed.
At least the SNP are trying to rid Scotland of it's present dependency on criminal states, by introducing self-sufficiency on power.
Maybe that's why the soon to be Prime Minister is following the present Prime Minister, and is avoiding that and all other serious issues, by attending as many 'jollies' as possible.
Yours etc
Angus Whitton
"John Large, an independent British nuclear consultant"
Is repeatedly wheeled out by the BBC & other PC types to verify nuclear scare stories. The BBC alleged that he was called in by Putin to help them rexscue the submarine which sunk, though the Russians appear to be unaware of this.
Recently it was revealed that he had spent many thousands on installing a windmill which endend up producing 9p of electricity a day.
I suspect the Russian spokesman quoted as saying there is "no danger" has a better record of accuracy.
#33 I'm intrigued. I have looked long and hard for any radiation accidents at civil nuclear power stations that have actually killed people. Chernobyl is the only one I can find, anywhere in the world. There have been a few incidents at military and research reactors, but by far the largest number of fatal radiation accidents result from the misuse of medical apparatus such as radiography equipment.
Are you suggesting this is a global conspiracy to cover up all nuclear power accidents? Even in countries that want to phase out nuclear power? To what end? Perhaps it is to destabilise the tiny and inoffensive fossil fuel industry? Hang on while I fetch my tinfoil hat.
37. Citylocal: 'At least the SNP are trying to rid Scotland of it's present dependency on criminal states, by introducing self-sufficiency on power.'
What 'criminal states' are you referring to and for what?And where will the coal come from? Won't it have to be imported? (Scottish deep mine coal too expensive)
#32 Colin, Glasgow
Your statements on Chernobyl and WHO do not appear to be supported by the WHO website:
"Medical examinations of about 210 000 children performed within the framework of the WHO International Programme on the Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident (IPHECA) and Chernobyl Sasakawa Project in the three countries since 1991, have shown a significant increase in the incidence of childhood thyroid diseases including thyroid cancer. In particular, evident for the Gomel region of Belarus, thyroid cancer incidence is about 100 times higher than before the accident."
Quite simply, Chernobyl was a disaster - please do not try to play down what happened there.
Proliferation of nuclear plants increases the risk of more Chernobyl type accidents and deliberate acts of terrorism. If developed industrialised countries of the West become primarily dependent on nuclear fission, how will they deny these plants to less stable countries across the globe?
Remember, consequences from nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders.
Please check WHO website at:
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/research/children/en/
#39 - "Civil" - Are they any purely "civil" plants?
Do you class Dounreay as "civil". The industry has a well documented history of cover ups - so I suppose there is a global conspiracy. We don't know the long term effects, its not in the interests of the government or the industry to admit to them because of the inevitable law suites. The medical research is deliberately kept vague (ie. not releasing details of leukaemia clusters round nuclear plants using the excuse of patient confidentiality).
Please go and do some research on these plants (using at least some independent sources) and come back and tell me they were run "safely" in the past.
No-one a guarantee 100% that these plants are safe, will never leak waste or accidentally radiate some staff. I am amazed some people are stupid enough to want to play with this technology again.
#38 - Well that that then, forget it all, you have all the proof we need.
"PC types" - so do you still call asian p***s and black people n*****s???
What the hell has being anti nucler got to do with begin PC?? At least know what the term means you fool.
We are relying on these guys (Russians) for gas to produce a huge amount of our* electricity – the quicker we build new nuclear for reliable electricily the better. (*Well Enlgand, Germany, Holland etc; Scotland and France already have more nuclear than gas).
New nuclear is much cleaner and safer than “clean” coal – the quicker we build new nuclear to be cleaner and safer the better. (could the anti nuclear lot please post comparable deaths and environmental damage for fossil fuels beside their stats)
#41,42 PDQ, look further on the WHO website:
"The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes."http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index....
It is certainly true that there was a huge increase in Thyroid cancer among children who drank milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. Thyroid cancer is relatively rare so any increase is very apparent. Thyroid cancer is preventable (though consumption of iodine tablets) and responds well to treatment - the survival rate was about 99%.
I am not playing down the effects of Chernobyl. I am countering the popular misconception that there was a massive mortality rate associated with the radiation. Apart from the Thyroid cancers (which caused 9 deaths) WHO were unable to actually observe any increase in cancers. They did not detect any rise in birth defect either. This is not surprising when you realise that the dose received by the vast majority of people around Chernobyl is within the range of natural background radiation elsewhere in the world.
The "highest exposed groups" at Chernobyl received a dose of >100mSv over 20 years. The residents received about 50mSv.
If you live in Aberdeen, uranium in the granite makes the natural background radiation about 4.5mSv above national average background radiation per annum (7mSv compared to the 2.4mSv average) - so you will receive nearly 100mSv excessive dose just by living in Aberdeen for 20 years.
Chernobyl was a disaster in nuclear terms,
So this is the fuel that's going to save us all? Think I'll stick to wind, hydro, wave and even coal if need be thanks!
What are the prevailing winds at murmansk? Will it effect the east or west? When chernobil blew, it affected Germany,and others.
14. Cant use my name anymore-Alex
What was your name before you said bad words?
The IAEA report confirmed the death toll at chernobyl at 50 though they buried it carefully.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=862932007
There has obviously been immense political pressure to ramp up this figure & many other organisations have obliged but none of them can point to any actual evidence.
There was a nuclear accident in Japan some years ago where 2 people died of radiation. This is the only such deaths since Chernobyl while coal related deaths worldwide have been calculated at 150,000, mainly from black lung & emphesema. The coal deaths get no media coverage.
#46 You are playing down Chernolbyl, because if you didn't your case would collapse.
I just love how the pro-nuc lobby ignores most of the facts when trying to promote the industry.
Ignore the mess at Dounreay, ignore the fiddled finances, ignore the health affects, ignore the 1000's of years it takes to make the waste and disused reactors safe. What gets me, it is too dangerous to treat these concerns so off-hand.
I am delighted there hasn't been a disaster as big as Chernobyl, but just because there hasn't been one doesn't mean it can't happen again. (Three Mile Island was VERY close to being as bad, but ignore that as well).
Nuclear plants are not profitable, if British Energy was a truly private company and not still subsided by tax payer handouts, it would have gone bust years ago. The economic case has always been fiddled to make it look a good investment - and on the back of that our alternative energy industry fell way behind those on the continent. Another wasted opportunity the Tories have performed (along with Churchill giving away of Jet engine technology and hiding our advances in computer in WW2)
#13. Conan: What kind of intelligent people?
There is many diffrent types of intelligent people.Some are; Antraperners, muisciasan, artis ect. Not just Science, and technogoy and even Scienits and Technologists can be spilt in to difrent feilds. Some have apsultely nothing to do with Necear.
Everyone makes human erors no matter who they are most are small BUT no ones realy amune form making the big.
I'm sure their is intelligent people in Russa, after all the Russan used a pencil in space were the Ammercains spent a forchen on creating a spesal pen to write in space.
Nuclear can be unperdictable.Here they know theres a problem.I hope they're taking some sort of action to prevent explosions.
#50 Neil: Between 1944 and June 1997, worldwide there were 392 accidents involving ionising radiation exposure in which 113 people died, 30 of them in the USA. A total of 133,492 people were involved of which 3008 people received significant exposures. (Source: Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site, Radiation Accident Registries). These figures do not include the deaths from cancer which occur decades later following exposure to radioactivity by, for example, ingestion of radioactive particles (cf Dounreay, the Isle of Man, Sellafield) which have leaked into the environment at sub-reportable levels.
The worrying point here is surely that the Andreeva Bay storage facility has been corroded by the ingress of fresh and saltwater because the concrete is cracking. Most nuclear reactors are sited on the coast to allow for the use of seawater as a coolant. Sea levels are rising. Concrete cracks. Maybe this is the "horrid black rain" across the Highlands that the Brahan Seer foresaw.....
#51 - Aye, so what. Tell that to the "50" people who were radiated at Chernobyl. Sorry you cant cos there dead.
Your comment is meaningless. Its when these plants go wrong that the problems arise. Can you guarantee me 100% that nothing will ever go wrong? Can you?
#54 Now we are getting somewhere. How many of these "accidents involving ionising radiation exposure" actually involved deaths at nuclear power stations? I am only aware of one. Chernobyl.
Here is a database of radiation accidents:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html
It is true that there have been a large number of radiation incidents, but by far the majority are related to medical and industrial radiation sources, not nuclear reactors, and especially not commercial nuclear power stations.
#56 - Be pedantic, nuclear power stations need an nuclear infrasture round them to supply fuel and process waste. But again, the lobby distorts the facts.
#52 "You are playing down Chernobyl, because if you didn't your case would collapse."
On the contrary, the actual hazard caused by Chernobyl is almost irrelevant to the argument. What is more important is that the risk of an accident even happening is low. Current reactor designs have a risk of meltdown approaching 1 in a million reactor years. And because all western nuclear power stations have containment buildings, even the effect of a meltdown would be contained as at Three Mile Island, and thus there would be no casualties.
The fact that a maximum credible accident like Chernobyl would have a relatively low casualty rate is just additional support for the argument.
#22 #25: A nuclear chain reaction might occur because the highly fissile isotopes left in the dumped fuel rods (uranium, plutonium, thorium) are leaking into the corroding water, which drips downwards onto the concrete floor. As soon as these radioactive, fissile isotopes reach a critical concentration in the floor sediment, (the last droplet from a leaking fuel rod will do it), there will be a great increase in the neutrons zipping around the vault. These will cause further fission inside the fuel rods themselves...and the net result be a nuclear explosion. The final events will happen within a fraction of a second. A highly radioactive cloud will rise to great altitude & fallout will occur across a vast swathe of Europe. Despite this, I firmly support properly managed nuclear power, which has an excellent record; its very openness allows Greenpeace et al. to squeal hysterically about the tiniest cracks and leaks - tiny things that even airlines & railways do not make public.
#59 - Ok, we'll agree to disagree re-Chernobyl, but what about my other points??
#60 "its very openness allows Greenpeace et al. to squeal hysterically about the tiniest cracks and leaks - tiny things that even airlines & railways do not make public."
That "openness" is a very, very recent thing. I'm sure under the new terrorist paranoia that will disappear. The "openness" is also dependant on everything being honestly and truthfully revealed. The track record on this is not good. I'll say it again, because this seem to be ignored, Can you guarantee me 100% Nuclear power is safe?
#60 Cracks and leaks that closed Hunterston down for a year??
#46 Colin, Glasgow
In #32, you said, "Even at Chernobyl, apart from the workers who actually put out the fire on the reactor, the radiation dose in the surrounding area did not create much of a cancer risk."
The WHO website said, "thyroid cancer incidence is about 100 times higher than before the accident."
Presumably, you accept your statement in #32 untrue and that thyroid cancer risk was increased 100 fold?
Your counter to this is that iodine tablets could have been swallowed by all victims affected to reduce their intake of radioactive iodine from the accident. People need to be aware, in what you propose, that they need prompt and ready access to adequate supplies of iodine tablets.
I don't have iodine tablets in my bathroom cabinet!
#27 is a Troll
If Nuclear power is so safe, why is there a warning sign at Sandness Beach, next to Dounreay. This itself plays down the damage being done to the enviroment. Why is there no uproar about nuclear particles floating in the sea with nothing being done about it?
I think the unappealling point we are all missing here is that current global population numbers are totally unsustainable, if, at the same time we want to save the planet. As has been said we all need energy in our lives and that is what drives civilisation forward. Question is, how much further can this juggernaut go before the total destruction of the natural world is an inevitable outcome? What then? The fact that we KNOW that nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years should surely make that choice an absolute no-brainer. And since we care so little for ourselves and our fellow inhabitants, why do we care so much about planets we can never live on? I mean, could we not just blast the entire problem elsewhere in the galaxy where for thousands of years it could bother no-one at all. That option seems to bother a lot of people on this planet, but why?
#52 #54 When making a comparison of the cost of nuclear power with other forms of power (e.g. that wielded by Bush and Mugabe), you must take into account the relative expense of the deaths, injuries & sickness caused, plus the real environmental damage. When you do this, the real costs of oil, gas, coal are much, much higher than the cost paid by consumers per kWh of electricity. Hydropower also has a significant cost in terms of lives lost building dams, the destruction of riverine ecosystems and flooded settlements, & the methane & water vapour greenhouse gases released. Wind, current, tidal, and wave power can only provide a fraction of the country's needs before you start inflicting significant ecological damage, although they must be used. The IAEA total deaths due to ionising radiation include those due to radiotherapy & nuclear medicine accidents: so be careful! Even when one includes Chernobyl, nuclear power looks excellent. When you exclude Chernobyl as a freak product of unique circumstances, nuclear power is in a safety class all of its own, both for people & the environment. Having said this, environmental activist organisations play an extremely valuable role in keeping the nuclear industry on its toes. While I wouldn't want them to hold the whip hand against nuclear professionals, I don't want anyone to silence such groups either. That's a large part of what went wrong in the USSR - a lack of information & public debate.
*1...yep......and Labour as well as most other unionist party's are saying it's safe and trying to stuff more money into it....
Says it all...doesn't it.....just short time thinking, rather than thinking, what it'll do in the longterm.
#66 Nuclear waste can be disposed of in a number of ways. I favour vitrifying the worst stuff, sealing this in stainless steal casks, putting the casks thousands of feet down shafts in granitic plutons, and finally plugging the shafts with concrete. There is very, very little high level waste, which is one reason that authorities can wait. Another reason is that you can keep the spent fuel available for extraction of plutonium - which allows one to get much more fuel from fuel rods than you started with. Plutonium is highly toxic & can be used for weapons, so politicians have stalled on this for ages. Finally, the final disposal of high level nuclear waste is a hot potato - no government wants to open a repository because they know that the general public is largely scientifically ignorant and heavily emotionally swayed by environmental lobby groups who haven't & can't conduct proper nuclear engineering risk analyses for waste repositories. Having said this, a single high level waste shaft in a granite pluton in e.g. the far outback of Australia, could receive all the world's high level waste for many years, and earn Australia a significant amount of foreign exchange.
3 Eddie
Westminster comissioned a report two years ago identifying sites in the UK where they could process nuclear waste, our own but also that of other countries. We were to become the worlds nuclear waste re-processors'. You know, create 300 jobs type but huge cancer cases in kids. Anyway, of the 20 sites identified, 18 were in Scotland.
nuclear radiation wont kill everything cockroaches are prehistoric insects on which large amounts of radiation has no effect other than to make them radioactive.as nuclear levels rise then perhaps we will mutate in a way that overcomes radioactivity and follow darwins theorys regarding survival of the fittest
#65 There is a "Keep Out" sign on Sandness Beach because the nuclear industry is safe. It wishes to stop a terrorist or a lunatic from walking up to Dounreay and firing weapons at its installations. In case there is a leak, they wish to have a fail-safe policy which will prevent the public being contaminated. Finally, since 1 in 3 will suffer from a cancer wherever we are & whatever we do, Dounreay wishes to prevent members of the general public walking along the beach, subsequently developing cancer naturally, and wrongly suing them.
#71 Good point. Kerala in India has the highest natural background radiation in the world. I think it's about 14mSv per person per year, but check! Finland also has high background radiation. For comparison in most countries nuclear workers are currently not allowed to receive >20mSv in a year from their work, and this only once every 3 years. The people in Kerala don't suffer from any higher incidence of cancer or birth defects than in otherwise comparable low radiation areas in India. Is this because a small amount of radiation is benign, or is it because Keralans have been genetically selected for the elimination of brith defects & childhood cancers due to radiation? No one knows.
As you know, number of predicted cancer deaths from radioactive exposure depends on the risk model employed, since the deaths in question have not happened yet. Unlike the figures quoted for thyroid cancers, which are diagnosed and very real.
The WHO figure of 4,000 predicted cancer deaths has been challenged as too low, and that the employed risk model in fact calculates it to be 9,000 (7.5%).
According to the TORCH Report (citing the “Chernobyl Children- Health Consequences and Psychosocial Rehabilitation” - Kiev 2003):"The most credible published estimate for the total worldwide collective dose from Chernobyl fallout is 600,000 person sieverts making Chernobyl the worst nuclear accident by a considerable margin. Of this total collective dose, approximately:
- 36% is to the populations of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia- 53% is to the population of the rest of Europe- 11% is to the population of the rest of the world"
The TORCH Report goes on to estimate that the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths.
Whether cancer deaths due to Chernobyl turn out to be closer to WHO/IEATA or TORCH figures, they are not insignificant and cannot be ignored.
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118499.th...
Jennie 54 - While you do not give a link I am pretty sure your 113 dead of radiation since 1944 will be overwhelmingly medical accidents (we had a death like that recently in Scotland) & also overwhelmingly in the earlier years. If you look at that compared to 150,000 from coal worldwide annually I hope you will take it in perspective.
I cannot, as Nittonl asks "guarantee me 100% Nuclear power is safe" nor can I guarantee that any activity whatsoever is 100% safe. However I think I can guarantee that nuclear is, at least, hundreds of times safer than the alternatives.
20 people in Britain have died of windmill accidents though this gets no coverage. The beaches at Aberdeen & Dalgety Bay are more radioactive than Dounraey, from natural radioactivity but the authorities are not pushed into putting up signs about that.We should treat nuclear power on the facts not the hysteria.
Tweedmouth #19.
tsk tsk ... the Russians (well Stalin to be exact) killed most of their army's tactical brains so were therefore left with a multitude of headless chickens instead of an organised group.
Russia didn't have to take a massive loan to pay off their debts after the war.
That's by the by ... they have made themselves a dirty country (in terms of nuclear waste) and it's other who have to pay for the mess ... including me via income tax !!.
Grow up please ....
#14 - AlexWait, it may have been me who was asleep that day.
#63 - PDQ
The Irish Medical Board were distributing free iodine tablets to the populace up to a few years ago, they may still be doing it, the last time I heard about it was 2003. Of course you will be aware that Ireland doesn't have any nuclear power plants and I'm not too sure that they would still be worried about Chernobyl.
It makes one wonder where the potential threat of radiation poisoning can come from.
18,77 Perkins Loch Lomond.??????? ????? ???? ??????????? ????? ????.??? ???????????, ???????? ????????????
#79 Erse
Yes, I believe it was fear of terrorist attack (on one of their neighbour's nuclear installations), rather than say eating mussels 'fortified' in nearby Morecambe Bay.
#36 DragonheadYes, of course, you're right. There are millions of us who think that China is a communist/imperialist dictatorship. This is of course, why so many of the western nations are scrambling to deal with the word's largest market. This is also why China is investing so heavily in countries such as Canada, buying up oil fields and tourist areas.
Russia is the country with poor infrastructure and safety standards. The idea in the old USSR was to get the thing built, so they wouldn't be left behind, not to do the job well to protect the safety of future generations
You said at one point that it had nothing to do with the UK then you said do something before it affects the UK. that sounds confused to me.
Wonder why CND are not protesting there in Russua and China? Oh yes of course they are all left wing socialist masquerading as communists
#57. AM2: Eh ~~~~~
Are you experencing wee bit of a reading difficulty today. Where your reading almost the piste what was written?
I belive I implyed that there was and are intelligent people in Russian. After Conan implyed that the Russians weren't intelligent.
I've read my comment over again and don't see where your comming from.
Sorry AM a wee bit of a typing error appeared just there, 1st bit should read (#84):Are you experencing wee bit of a reading difficulty today. Where your reading almost the opsit to what was written?
Due to our ever increasing demand for power as cheap as possible,I fear that nuclear power stations are inevitable,where ever they are built on mainland UK they are of course a risk,but a managable risk as is the waste produced.The alteratives ie,wind or tide are not realistic,gas gas relies on uncertain suppliers coal could have been a possible but for Thatcher and Scargill,open cast does not have the thermal value nor the amounts required.As for deep mines,who would nowadays go underground in such primeval conditions?Machines can't extract without manual intervention,not taking into consideration the cost of opening up the old seams.To return to nuclear waste momentarily,when may I ask is our great first minister going to address our own nuclear waste "pile" at Roysth,No nuclear in Scotland was the cry,or was it said just to get into office? I wonder mmmmmm.
So this is what Blair and Brown want for the UK. They`ll be alright in their nuclear bunkers - or so they might think. And they tell us that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases - I think it is more likely caused by radiation etc leaking from nuclear power stations etc into the sea. Anyone disbelieve me?
#87What ever your on you should bottle it and sell it as an alternative to idiot juice.
60. Caora Dubh, Dhachaigh
Absolutely, isn't a wee bit of nuclear radiation good for you?
Only 56 people died from radiation after the Chernobyl 'incident'.
The hundreds of thousands eventually evacuated, and the 30Km exclusion area can now be seen as a knee jerk over reaction to a 1 in 10,000 year reactor explosion.
Like atomic reactor cores' melting down is some kind of a big deal.
Chapelcross at Annan has had loads of accidents and it was one of our safest nuclear installations.It had a reactor fire in 1967 and a partial reactor core meltdown which closed it down for two years, but you don't hear of anyone here having run away in panic.
Well ok, it never appeared on our news, but you know what I mean.http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/top-five-nuclea...
Three Mile Island wasn't the end of intelligent life in the USA.
Windscale in Cumbria, no biggie was it?
The beaches around Dounrae present a one in a quadrillion risk of killing anyone from radioactivity with escaped plutonium particles, which are safe because they would pass harmlessly straight through your body anyway.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm
Anyway Lukemia and related cancers often take twenty years to present, by that time the victims will be old anyway, so why worry?http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/allchernobyl.html
All, most?, of the birth defects coming out of Ukraine and Belarus are statistically normal for them.
I'm sure it wont be long before Pripyat and Chornobyl will be opened up to the public, possibly as a 'Chernobyl disaster' theme park with hotels and campsites springing up all around the
#63 PDQ, I admit I could have been more precise in qualifying my statement. I was not referring to Thyroid cancers in particular but to cancer risk in general, as should now be obvious.
If you look at the Thyroid risk in particular, there is a significant increase. But, as the WHO report says, the overall increase in cancer risk is estimated to be 3-4% based on approximately 4000 excess deaths. The nine fatal Thyroid cancers don't affect this overall cancer risk significantly (though they are clearly and unambiguously linked to Chernobyl).
My point is, the media and various other sources have implied the risk is higher. If you asked most people how much the cancer risk for emergency workers in Chernobyl had risen due to radiation, I doubt most would say 3-4%.
On #75 I am well aware of the models used to predict cancer deaths. In general if you apply a very small risk to a huge population you get apparently sizeable numbers of predicted deaths. For example if you apply the 2.4mSv average natural radiation dose to the population of the world you discover that 30 million people will die from background radiation over 50 years. Conjuring 30,000 notional deaths over the same period from low dose radiation from Chernobyl doesn't really mean much at all if you apply it to a huge population. We put up with larger variations in natural radiation levels all the time.
More to the point we have 3 million people dying every year from air pollution largely due to fossil fuel use. 300,000 premature deaths per year in Europe alone. If were using more nuclear power there would be fewer fossil fuel deaths. It is not a difficult to see that anti-nuclear protest is at fault here.
The Murmansk episode only proves once more that All that is Russian is evil, and all evil Russian in origin. If only the Roman Catholic Archbishops had followed the request of the Virgin Mary of Fatima and dedicated Russia (and not simply the whole world) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary then Russia would already be converted to Catholicism, and these evils of nuclear explosions prevented. And, of course, a great wrong would be righted if Russia would return the Karelian left leg of Finland back to its proper owner then all might be forgiven!
#67. Caora Dubh, Dhachaigh
Quite right, you do well to highlight the issues of water vapour greenhouse gas contamination of the atmosphere from hydro stations.
For years we have been making steam with no thought for the environmental consequencies of our actions.
Can you provide some links for the volumes of methane produced by UK reservoirs?
Like most people I'd always thought that the rotting of the vegetation in river valleys present before flooding was just a one off initial situation when I've seen the barren rock exposed during times of low water levels.
You are also correct, ionising radiation is in a safety class of its own.When I was at Uni two of my best mates were former employees on the experimental reactor at Dounrae.
The laughs we had at the 'japes' they got up to. Just as well Greenpeace never overheard, they'd have had collective seizures eh?
Quite an original idea, that nuclear power and radiation, even with Chernobyl, looks excellent.
Is that because of the low numbers of accidents reported in nuclear facility construction over the last twenty years?
Steelmaking in Scotland has gotten a lot safer too and that used to be terribly dangerous.
Whatever the solutions would be, can't replace the need for Scottish Civil Defense!
92. Colin, Glasgow
I have friends on a farm near Eaglesham who tell me that sheep in Scotland are still being kept from the market and farmers receiving compensation for rearing sheep on hills still contaminated from 1986http://www.legislation.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/sen200...
All that fuss for twenty years over some harmless radiation.
Do not know why they make such a fuss about radio activity; just chuck the stuff in deep international waters, eg mid Pacific.Has anyone noticed that The Scotsman & other papers never invite comment on controversial matters, eg where someone might take offence? I emailed a newspaper recently about a suspicious UK death that was being ignored. Having received an anodyne totally bland 'no comment' from a "journalist", I replied with a succinct phrase. Wow! His reply was, paraphrased, "I have uncovered many scandals; hasn't it occurred to you that there might be a reason why no national newspaper nor even the BBC are reporting on this matter?" So an experienced reporter has admitted that he has information that he is unable to share with his readers, even though they buy his product in good faith. If hard hitting, courageous journalists have been censored, you begin to wonder what the British government is doing. Perhaps the PM will grant himself a pardon before he leaves?
Having plowed through the various comments most posters a sadly lacking in Basic Physics and definitely the rudiments of Nuclear Physics. The author of this article is certainly lacking and I doubt if he holds even an O Level in a science subject. Given the description of this vault I doubt if it is possible to achieve ‘critical mass’ without which there will be little heat and certainly no nuclear explosion.
I agree the situation is not good and presents a local hazard, but it does not justify the OTT scare story in this article.
Another ignorant journalist, who doesn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. My sister-in-law is married to one- God help her – he and his friends I regard as cretins. I’m sure their must be some good Journalist somewhere but I’ve yet to met one
92. Colin, GlasgowColin this radiation is as safe as the asbestos that was used in the Clyde ship yards.
There were very few fatalities among the shipyard workers while still in employment.
But one of them prevented me selling my flat in East Kilbride for years when they found asbestos in the construction of the council built flats and this guy appeared on the news in his death bed with his oxygen mask on telling every one what asbestos had done to him.
It took me years to get rid of that flat.
Likewise my mother picked up HepC from a contaminated blood transfusion following a routine op back in the 80's.
She was told that in twenty years if she died of liver cancer it would be nothing to do with the US supplied blood and blood products.
A friend of the family died recently from cancer 'completely unrelated' to his hosing and scrubbing down RAF test aircraft, which had been flown through atomic mushroom clouds, in his shirtsleeves and shorts during the British atom bomb tests of the 60's even though the RAF aircraft technicians were wearing, as he put it, full 'noddy suits'.
Yes, statistically using government figures you are more likely to die tying a shoelace than you would be from exposure to atomc radiation.
Hey, hunner up to me!See me, by the way!!
8. Dragonhead, China / 3:08am 2 Jun 2007
Sir,
And what would you say if, Putin of Russia decided to install a nuclear missile shield system for Hugo Chevez, to protect Venezuela from attack by the USA. The US being the only nation in history to incenerate masses with nuclear bombs.
So Bush is going to install a nuclear missle shield system in Eastern Europe, on the door step of Russia. To protect WHO ???? from WHO Iran what a joke !
Sir, for some one who lives is a country where people are not allowed to vote, CHINA . Your comments have little or no merit in my opinion.
Galactic Cannibal
99. Sanny, Portugal & Glasgow
Yes, my girl friend pointed out that just about every house in her street had had someone die of cancer when I remarked that it must be unusual for all four members of the one family to contract cancer and for three of them to die within a year of each other.
They lived and died within view of the building holding the University experimental reactor at the National Engineering Laboratory in East Kilbride.
Coincidence no doubt, but I dare say an investigation would have had a negative effect on local property values.
Mind you, these days what else are you gonna die of?
"I don't have iodine tablets in my bathroom cabinet!" (post 63)
I do, though they're not really necessary unless you have kids in the house and radioactive dust containing iodides descends on you. The NHS has stockpiles of them which they are supposed to distribute if needed. Knowing our gov't's capacity for maladministration and the likelihood of panic, I decided not to rely on them.
It's the radiation and particles from outer space that you should worry about IMHO, not concrete bunkers in Russia. The protective qualities of the atmosphere and magnetosphere stop us being brown bread. If nuclear power helps save the atmosphere, bring it on.
Radioactive particles are been found on the north shore line of my native Sutherland. Why is this if Nuclear is so safe.
#106 Don't be stupid. The UK Govt only wants new nuclear power stations so that they can kill us all secretly and win lots of votes. Clearly. Somehow.
#106 -> #105
See comment 1. Others have pointed out that cheap & safe isn't possible when generating electricty. Use of fossil fuel produces pollution. Coal mining is a dangerous occupation, the same for drilling for oil & gas. All other methods of generating electricity can be difficult, involve some degree of danger, have a monitary cost & require an adequate numer of skilled operators to generate & transport the power to users. Both private & public utilities try to generate & distribute power on the cheap. To avoid accidents & costs one could learn to live without electricity. Volunteers may form a line on the right.
Let's do a quick check. Where is the majority of contamination world-wide? Government owned/controlled lands. Who were the perpetrators? Government and government protected businesses. What's the solution? To strip government to the barest of functions and hold people accountable for their actions. The Anti-federalists in the nascent U.S. had the right ideas. Too bad we have strayed so far.
113. Symbian: What about Ka?
#73 Caora Dubh, and others interested in the beach particles from Dounreay. You might find the following SEPA report very informative, particularly with regards to the relative risk.
http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactivity/dpag/3rd_report.htm
Some quotes:
"7.6.7 Nine relevant particles have been found over the same area during this 22-year period. For ‘high rate’ users of the beach, such as bait diggers and dog walkers, the probability of direct skin contact with a relevant particle is about 1 in 80 million per year and of ingestion or inhalation about 1 in 1 million million per year (Wilkins et al. 2006), as outlined in Chapter 6. For infrequent visitors, such as holidaymakers, the probabilities are even smaller, by about an order of magnitude or more.""7.6.8 The hazard associated with relevant particles is evidently extremely small. It is a combination of the very small probability of contact with a particle and the unlikelihood of the particle causing serious detriment to health."
Note, when they say "1 in a million million" that is not a typo. They really DO mean one in a trillion! After the unlikely event of having accidentally ingested a particle, the risk of fatal cancer is around 1 in 30,000, which is significantly less than background radiation risk (1 in 10,000).
#105 MacShimmy
You're kidding, right? Everyone may be considered equal, but in real life.....I do hope your post is tongue-in-cheek.See the looks you get in London when you speak with a Scots accent. A nuclear reactor would NEVER be located near London. The possibility of a disaster would see to that. And NO reactor is 100% safe. We,as humans cannot be 100% on anything. We make mistakes. Ideally, they should be located somewhat near (within 60 miles) of a major industrial area, not near your seat of government. London likes the reactors where they are, thank you.Let's see where they propose to put these new ones they're talking about. I bet there's none in the Home Counties.As for storing the nuclear waste, why Scotland....why Trident in Scotland and not London? Nuclear may be clean, but there are other options.Why don't governments shut down these massive timber companies who rape the world of old growth forest every year and plant seedlings.....which take over 30 years to get close to the CO2 processing that old growth does.There are enough options for building materials in the world to do this.Okay, nearly done..... if given the choice of living near a nuclear plant or nuclear wasted storage facility or.....anywhere else....guess what my choice would be. And yes, I suppose I'm a hypocrite. I will use the electricity produced by nuclear, albeit unwillingly, and still call for them to close.
Reply to comment 97.
I used to live in Wigtown which is not very far as the crow flies from Sellafield and the local farmer warned me not to eat anything from the sea or land in the area because it was contaminated with radiation - and this was before the Chernobyl disaster! It is now much worse. Sheep in the area were banned from going to market - I think it is still the same. Nuclear power will doom us all - not just the sheep!!!!!
117. ALIENSONLINE, Wickford England There are stiill 10 farms in Scotland considered too 'hot' post Chernobyl to permit livestock reared there to be used in the food chain.
Whether this was domestic contamination as a result of previous domestic incidents only uncovered due to testing after the Chernobyl disaster it may be another few decades yet before we ever find out.
There is also the small matter of depleted uranium artillery rounds being fired into the Solway Firth from the army ranges at Dundrennan.
115. Colin, Glasgow>>>After the unlikely event of having accidentally ingested a particle, the risk of fatal cancer is around 1 in 30,000, which is significantly less than background radiation risk (1 in 10,000).<<<So how can I get some dietry plutoniun particles from Boots the chemist to reduce my risk from background atomic radiation?
Still there are people in the world who keep stating that plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances known to man.What are they like?
btw Can you remind me, what are the odds of winning on the lottery?And how exactly are these risk facors calculated out to be 1 in a quadrillion.
Using their original figures the former Soviets in Ukraine have worked out that they can now safely proceed with their nuclear program for the next 9,979 years before another Chernobyl type incident.
117. ALIENSONLINE, Wickford England
A serious accident at the Chapelcross nuclear reactor in Annan, Wigtonshire was when 24 radioactive fuel rods were dropped onto the floor, nearly causing the certain death of plant workers and the release of a radioactive cloud which would have contaminated the entire Wigton/Dumfries and Galloway region.
The accident occurred when engineers were routinely removing irradiated uranium fuel rods by remote control from reactor three.
After trying to attach a cylinder containing 24 rods to a crane, the cylinder came loose and fell two-and-a-half feet onto the shaft door.
Authorities at the nuclear power plant had to work out how to retrieve the extremely radioactive fuel rods which were lying where they fell on 5 July 2001.
Normal fueling operations were suspended at Chapelcross and its sister station, Calder Hall at Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale.
Chapelcross was Scotland's oldest nuclear power station at the time and was operated by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL).
The plant housed four 50-megawatt reactors and a secret military plant which produced radioactive tritium for Trident warheads.
During 2001 another accident occurred at Chapelcross during de-fueling when a grab-release mechanism failed.
In 1999 alone there were four pollution incidents at the plant.
One of those incidents caused contamination in the surrounding community.
In May 1967 radioactivity was released into the environment when fuel caught fire in a reactor and it suffered a partial meltdown which forced power generation from the reactor to stop for two years while repairs were carried out.
News of these accidents were not published widely in Scotland, and up till its closure the station was credited as having the best safety record of any Scottish nuclear facility.
You know what I'm thinking...
Naturaly we heard he-haw about these until after the plant wa
#1, James, the people who want to sell it. As I recall, the beginnings of the atomic bomb involved three universities, one in St. Louis, one in Chicago and one in Berkeley California. The atomic bomb grew out of a medical research project. The seeds of the will to help man became the seeds to employ the hands of those who seek to destruct man in the name of uncontrolled power. As usual the businessmen got wind of it and decided it was for them and to hell with everyone else. The public always foots the bill for thier dirty clean-ups. But if I were you I would be very wary that China has not already found a use for all of that Plutonium. The dirtiest businessmen in the world are the Chinese operating undercover as stupid naiive "communists." There will be no power in the world more ugly and fascist as that when China threatens to bomb the world. And it intends to.
I will never trust nuclear (Or is it nuukalurr, as curious George says?) Energy to a race descended from Apes, let alone one that openly admits to said ancestry... This issue (and the ensuing discussion) reminds me of when I was one of five assistant curators at the Primates Exhibit (read: Monkey House) at the local Zoological "Garden" (read: Zoo): On particularly boring nights, after close, just to liven things up a bit we'd toss a loaded .357 Magnum into the cage with the Chimps and take bets on how long it would take to go off--with side bets on the kill/casualty #s. Frightening, no? But the most frightening aspect of the entire "causal" frame was that the Chimps wouldn't have a clue; i.e.: the "accidental" discharge of a live round wouldn't have rats to do with REASON (you know, Cause and Effect?) or choice. So also it seems with the "Nuclear Question." Monkeys playing with the Primal Fire, seemingly without a clue about Cause and Effect. It's bound to result in a scorched buttock(s) or two, or two million... but who's counting anything but currency... Anyways, me colleagues and I, and our experiments in “Primate Causality,” was abruptly terminated when the Head Curator’s pussy -- a sweet little Callie named Smoot -- was grazed by a stray round; leaving her tail-less, with her left hindquarter shy a tablespoon or two of epidermis. Her injuries might have been somewhat more severe had the round not passed through the forearm of the Curator; who had -- to her misfortune -- arrived to work early that morning, pussy in arms. Intrinsically, the “game” was not at fault, it bears no onus for flawed logic. To wit: I and my colleagues had merely “forgotten” about what was in play, and gone about our “business,” shoveling monkey-doo, monkey-c and such. So imagine our surprise (as all who have heard the unexpected report of a .357 magnum will attest) For the shorter tale: Smoot survived, not so the Curator. We were le
#9, tweedmouth, it would seem that Russia had not a lot of history between the October Revolution in the 19-teens and the Question of WWII by the mid-thirties. In that context the leader/s of that revolution were not Russian but European. And that victory was short-lived headed by Lenin before squelched by Stalin whose fascism and social realism was more akin to Hitler's than contrary. Having lost its central means of patonage, the Russian Royal family, and groping for its identity, it is not likely it entered WWII on any position of strenghth, and barely survived it. All evidence points in favor of your statements. Russia has not entered an era of democracy of late but yet another era of fascist imperialist capitalism as has the USA and subsequently the rest of the world, with the most populus, least in need of mass destruction weapons desperately seeking to attain them. These overpopulated nations of the third world could not be any less interested in world peace, but on the contrary, desperate for the methods to extract lands and resources to take care of its burgeoning populations which it has utterly NO intention of controlling.
#119 Livilion, if you read the SEPA report you would know that the particles are Caesium, not Plutonium.
The odds of winning the lottery with a single ticket are about 1 in 14 million. The odds of the Dounreay beach particles harming you by accident are about a billion times less likely than you winning the lottery. It would be the equivalent of somebody winning the lottery jackpot twice on consecutive weeks then putting the resulting winnings on a horse at 1000 to 1 and that winning too.
It is something so improbable that it is not just unlikely to happen to you in your lifetime digging on the beach, but is unlikely to affect anybody even if the entire population of 100,000 Earths dug on the beach for their whole lives.
Why are you so unwilling to accept expert analysis of risk and are more inclined to trust your own clearly skewed judgement? This is at the core of the anti-nuclear case: a reliance on suggestion and innuendo with no concrete assessment of the actual risks. In the meantime, the consequences of not using nuclear power are far more dire.
104 said "Radioactive particles are been found on the north shore line of my native Sutherland. Why is this if Nuclear is so safe."
Firstly - non-radioactive particles have been found there (called sand). Why is this if non-nuclear material is so safe.
Secondly - neither the level of radioactivity nor the source is mentioned. Natural background radiation makes the beach at Aberdeen more radioactive (a number of other places around the world such as the beach in Ubatu, Brazil & part of Yellowstone Natural park have natural background radiation many times our official safe limit with no measured effect). I see no opponents of nuclear electricity saying Aberdeenshire is unfit for human habitation.
124. Colin, Glasgow I suppose I have a healthy suspicion of anything coming from the mouths of politicians or 'experts', in the pay of politicians, or such as yourself.
I am more inclined to trust my own skewed judgement because:
I might maintain my health a bit longer,I have worked first hand with politicians.
My own mother has been repeatedly lied to by government officials over her Hepatitis C infection with infusions of contaminated American blood. Her doctor ripped incriminating evidence from her medical notes right in front of her.
My father was a chief scientific officer at the NEL. A lot of work went on there week in week out which according to official sources did not, particularly for the military.
My work has taken me to Hunterston and to Torness. There they have a much more respectful attitude to the potential deleterious effects of radioactivity.
My two best mates at Uni worked at the Dounrae experimental fast breeder.
We in this part of the country have grown up listening to blatant lies coming from our officials, elected or otherwise.
e.g. The government telling the people of Scotland that with independence they'd be an economic basket case, the new Bangladesh or Albania, when at the same time their own experts were telling them that Scotland would be so wealthy it would be embarrassing.
Furthermore I am interested in your certainty of the nature of these particles given that even Comare, the specific committee set up to investigate medical effects of radiation on the environment and which in turn advises SEPA, do not have accurate information on the nature of the various types of radioactive particles being found in increasing numbers, as the technology to detect them improves, all along the north coast.
Comare say that the data available is flawed due to the inadequacies of testing methods and equipment in use till now.
If I fail to detect radioactivity then is it
125. Neil, 9% Growth >>>I see no opponents of nuclear electricity saying Aberdeenshire is unfit for human habitation.<<<The harmful effects of radiation from the environment has been a health issue in Aberdeen for many years.
Here is what Aberdeen University says about it:
Radon Gas
Radon gas occurs naturally by the radioactive decay of Uranium, which is present in small quantities underneath houses and in some building materials.
The gas, like Carbon Monoxide, is colourless, odourless and tasteless but has been identified as the second largest cause of lung cancer after smoking.
Radon levels vary widely in the UK, but the gas is particularly prevalent in areas of granite or limestone.
Especially where these rocks make up the building materials, for example, in "the Granite City" of Aberdeen.
Concentrations in the open air are very low. Radon in soil and rocks mixes with air and rises to the surface where it is quickly diluted in the atmosphere.
However, Radon that enters enclosed spaces and buildings, can reach relatively high concentrations in some circumstances, especially in buildings with insufficient ventilation.
Health Effects of Radon Inhalation. Breathing high concentrations of radon can cause lung cancer.
The risk is nevertheless small because the gas is radiologically not very active, with a half-life of 4 days.
Unfortunately, the decay products of radon itself are more hazardous isotopes of solid elements with an active 30 minute half-life.
These particles, such as Polonium, irradiate the lungs more effectively upon inhalation and are especially dangerous since they can attach to other natural aerosols and subsequently become lodged in the lining of the respiratory system.
It is therefore important to reduce indoor radon concentrations as low as reasonably practicable.
In the UK, half of the average human r
How many mSv does a body receive from:1. a dental x-ray2. a chest x-ray3. a CAT scan?
128. fred bloggs, glowing in the dark
A typical chest X-ray will give a dose of about 0.05 milliseverts or the same as your normal daily dose from background radiation.
The issue for the non-nuclear scientists(which is most of us) is that there are many different units in radiation measurement, used for high doses, low doses or different types of radiation sources.eg Rads, Rems, Roentgens, Severts, Curies and Becguerels.So that quoting numbers may not be directly informative.
But next time you go for an xray you will be aware that you are in the room on your own and the x-ray technician is behind a lead screen next door.
For guidance, the background radiation in the UK is generaly about 2mSv per year depending on local geology and geography.Some areas have been more exposed to airborne contamination from accidents and nuclear testing.
The internationally accepted standard is that 100 times this level received externally might be expected to kill you, while 15 times this taken internally could be fatal.
My understanding is that the maximum exposure limit for workers is 50mSv with talk of reducing this to 20mSv
#126 Livilion, firstly I have to say that I have a great deal more respect for you given your latest post - clearly you are capable of analysing the facts.
Some of the particles would give a dose equivalent to one year of background radiation (2.4mSv) if ingested. Most would give less, others would give more. When COMARE say "roughly equivalent" this could as easily mean half as much as an annual dose. The dose from the particle would not all be experienced in one day, but over the course of time as the particle moved through the body. The main point being that anything around this level is not generally considered to be a serious threat to health.
It would certainly be worth avoiding if possible, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is deadly.
An actual lethal dose of radiation (LD50 - one that would induce acute radiation sickness and 50% probability of death in the short term) is around 4500mSv, and this would have to be received in short period of time (hours or possibly days).
The risk of long term cancer from radiation is approximately 5% per 1000mSv. This is cumulative over time and doesn't have to be received in one go.
Dental x-ray 0.01mSvChest x-ray 0.06mSvCAT scan 1.1mSvBackground radiation, avg per year 2.4mSv
The main protection from the beach particles however is the colossal un-likelihood of accidentally ingesting one in the first place. This is estimated by SEPA to be in the region of 1 in a trillion per year for people using the beach regularly.
And Labour want up to build more? Incredible. The SNP have made the right call here.
130. Colin, GlasgowNeed I point out that the dose from the typical particle could also be half as much again.Material from fuel rods eg has been flushed away with coolant in Dounrae machining shops. The range of materials flushed to sea is worrying as is it's tendency to return to the beach over time.
The one in a trillion is as useful as the Chernobyl technicians' assertions that an accident such as happened there was a one in ten thousand year likelyhood.
The industry acknowledges that its detectors and methodology are far from perfect.
In otherwords we have a deaf, blind man saying 'no problem, I can't see anything wrong here' before trying to cross the road.On the basis of his own evidence he has a one in a double blue moon probability of having a problem trying to cross that road.
The likelihood of harm being triggered by ingestion is also predicated on the particle travelling through the gut and being excreted.
What likelihood of harm from inhalation and lodging of particles in the soft tissues of the lung?
Sand doesn't get lifted by the breeze around Rae?
