excellent book to read particualrly the chapter on how regulation has
tripled the cost of nuclear power and in some cases forced it never to
be operated at all even once built.
(harry, dont bother to read it, it contains facts, sums logic and big
words and we know you don't get on well with any of those things, so
ignorance is bliss, eh?)
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
No more and I suspect a lot less than other types of industrial
Three Mile Island (1979): Dead: zero, injured: zero.
Chernobyl (1986): Dead: 75, injured: possibly 4000 who need not have
been (source: WHO).
Fukushima: (2011?): Dead: zero, injured: zero.
Doesn't add up to much, eh, harry? You can look up "List of industrial
disasters" in WinkyPedia for other numbers.
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
Entirely caused by operator error, which could have been prevented by
Hey, four guys died trying to put out a fire there. Just sayin' like...
There have also been two fatal accidents in the USA since 1979, both of
which involved electrocution due to unlabelled or incorrectly labelled
None of the other incidents I've looked at in the last half Century
happened while in normal operation.
It was more than operator error, it was deliberate mal-operation for an
unauthorised test. It would also not have happened if the control and
safety systems had been of a safer design or if the fundamental design
of the reactor been safer. Neither this sort of reactor, nor its control
systems would have been permitted in the West.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:09:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
You have a naive and jingoistic view of western competence with which
no rational person could possibly concur ...
The fire at Windscale resulted partly from poor design and partly from
change of use. Emissions were better than they might have been had
not "Cockroft's Follies" been installed, but still bad.
Wrt to Three Mile Island ...
"The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of
plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant
accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as
human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous
control room indicators in the power plant's user interface."
As previously linked, Dounreay's safety record included using a pit
connected to the sea to store waste that was never originally intended
for that purpose. Some of the waste was sunk into the pit using rifle
fire. An explosion was caused by sodium and potassium wastes reacting
with water. Heavy particles are still washing the northern mainland
coast of Scotland, and beaches have had to be closed.
As previously linked, staff at THORP routinely ignored alarms and
warning systems allowing a leak to carry on for months. It was only
discovered by accountants who were wondering where uranium was going
As previously linked, in recent years safety standards at various US
plants have been relaxed as a result of blackmail of the authorities
by the operating companies.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the west are any better or safer
at running nuclear plant than anyone else. On the contrary, the above
suggests that if anything the opposite is true.
The same error-prone species of human being runs and will be running
current and proposed western systems as ran Windscale, Three Mile
Island, Dounreay, Chernobyl, THORP, and Fukushima. That they will
have the same human failings as above is inevitable.
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
My mistake. 3rd April "TEPCO confirms the first deaths at the Fukushima
facility, two workers who had been missing since 11 March and appear to
have died in the basement of reactor 4 from bleeding due to multiple
injuries inflicted by the tsunami"
Could've sworn all the news services carried a story about four guys
that were killed in a steam explosion.
<Chuckle> Should've added "In Nuclear installations". From Wikilies:-
"July 15, 1987 Burlington, Kansas, USA Safety inspector dies from
electrocution after contacting a mislabeled wire at Wolf Creek Nuclear
"March 29, 1988 Burlington, Kansas, USA A worker at the Wolf Creek
Generating Station falls through an unmarked manhole and electrocutes
himself when trying to escape"
Maybe the wolves want their creek back.
quite likleyt there were so many lies spread that what's one more?
I think one more worker died of a heart attack a few weeks later.
As I recall there were no major fires either.
Well the point is thatthise are not nuclear related accidents per se.
they just happened to take place in a nuclear planyt.
Like the fire in the french reprocessing facility 'emergency at french
nuclear plant' turns out some idiot dropped a match in a wastebasket or
something miles away from any nuclear materials..
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
And the person in charge of the plant at the time died of cancer in
2012. The cancer was *not*, according to his medical team, connected to
And as we all know, wind turbines never fail, do they.
Incidentally, when did the last nuclear reactor spontaneously and
disastrously self-destruct *while in normal use*, Harry?
A hint:- It was *long* before Fukushima, where the destruction was
caused by unprecedented forces of nature.
Three Mile Island was initially caused by an external equipment failure,
and made worse by operator error, so was preventable. Chernobyl was
*entirely* caused by operator error while a test was being run, so I'd
not count that as normal operation either.
Note: This book was published in 1990 and is already out of date.
While I don't disagree with much of what is said, there are some
specific errors of fact or logic given below ...
"Nitrogen oxides are best known as the principal pollutant from
automobiles and are the reason why cars need expensive pollution
control equipment which requires them to use lead-free gasoline;"
Wrong - lead additives were removed from fuels because lead in the
environment is of itself harmful, and it was the introduction of
lead-free petrol for these other reasons that then allowed catalytic
convertor technology to become practical:
"Lead is very toxic and lead compounds in exhaust gases escape into
the atmosphere causing pollution. Impacts on human health are widely
documented. This led to the introduction of lead-free petrol."
"Widespread adoption of catalytic converters didn't occur until more
stringent emission control regulations forced the removal of the
anti-knock agent, tetraethyllead, from most gasoline, because lead was
a 'catalyst poison' and would inactivate the converter by forming a
coating on the catalyst's surface, effectively disabling it."
This same paragraph containing the above error also contains:
- 2 examples of qualifiers such as 'perhaps' when claiming
- "And next comes the ash, the solid material produced at a rate of
1,000 pounds per minute, which is left behind to cause serious
environmental problems and long-term damage to our health." ... "And
then there are heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and many others that
are known or suspected of causing cancer, plus a myriad of other
health impacts." ... "And then there are heavy metals like lead,
cadmium, and many others that are known or suspected of causing
cancer, plus a myriad of other health impacts. Finally there is
uranium, thorium, and radium, radioactive wastes released from coal
burning that serve as a source of radon gas." The latter two are the
principle hazard in the first, but he's stating them as if they are
three different things.
The above show that this is someone struggling to make a biased case.
"For example, if all the air pollution emitted from a coal plant in
one day were inhaled by people, 1? million people could die from it,3
which is 10 times the number that could be killed by ingesting or
inhaling the waste produced in one day by a nuclear plant. [para]
This is obviously an unrealistic comparison ..."
Exactly, so why make it then?
"For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be
to convert the waste into a glass a technology that is well in hand
and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations."
RANDOM locations?! Geologically stable ones I could understand at
least, but RANDOM locations? For example, would this include the
mid-Atlantic ridge, a constructive plate margin where undersea
eruptions frequently take place?
"Another, and very different, way of comparing the dangers of nuclear
and coal waste is on the basis of how much they are changing our
exposures to toxic agents. The typical level of sulfur dioxide in the
air of American cities is 10 times higher than natural levels, and the
same is true for the principal nitrogen oxides.6 For cancer-causing
chemicals the ratio is much higher."
But what percentage of these increases are actually caused by burning
coal to produce electricity, rather than burning other fuels to move
"For radiation, on the other hand, exposures expected from
hypothetical problems with nuclear waste are in the range of 1 mrem or
less, tens of thousands of times below those for which there is direct
evidence for harm to human health."
I've not heard anyone claiming that the problem from nuclear waste is
one of general public exposure to it - that usually only arises from
accidents (or, hypothetically, from potential terrorist action).
"One option is to dispose of the spent fuel directly by sealing fuel
assemblies into canisters and burying them. A much more rational
approach from the standpoint of long-range planning is to put the fuel
through a chemical reprocessing operation to separate out the uranium
and plutonium which are valuable for future use as fuels, and to
convert the residual material into a form suitable for burial. If we
follow the first option, our uranium resources will run out sometime
during the next century, whereas the second option can provide all of
the energy humans will need for as long as they inhabit planet Earth,
without an increase in fuel costs (see Chapter 13)."
There are two mistakes, at least, in this paragraph:
"the second option can provide all of the energy humans will need for
as long as they inhabit planet Earth" is bollocks. Uranium fuel is a
finite resource, it cannot last a potentially infinite time.
"without an increase in fuel costs". I've linked many times before to
evidence that reprocessing fuel does increase fuel costs. That's
exactly why it isn't currently done.
"Storage facilities for waste packages have been designed, and there
would be no great difficulty or expense in building them."
A bland assumption stated as fact.
"We have already pointed out that producing the materials for
deployment of a solar array requires about 3% as much coal burning as
producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning."
A specious argument. Why assume that solar arrays have to be made
using electricity produced from coal? Why not use wind or nuclear
powered electricity to make them instead? And, in the interests of
fairness, why aren't the carbon and electrical inputs into mining,
refining, and reprocessing nuclear fuel included and compared with
those for coal and solar power?
"We showed in Chapter 8 that there are many ways that money can be
used to save lives at a rate of at least one life saved per $100,000
spent. But even suppose that so many improvements are instigated that
it will cost $1 million to save a life in the distant future (all our
discussions discount inflation). There is a continuous record
extending back 5,000 years of money always being able to draw at least
3% real (i.e., discounting inflation) interest. Each dollar invested
now at 3% interest is worth $2.5 million after 500 years and will
therefore be capable of saving more than one life."
Another specious argument - the same principles will apply in 500
years as now, and then 500 later, and so on; the net result of
applying this argument consistently throughout time would be that no
money at all would ever get spent on saving lives.
"The current status is that a tentative site has been selected, under
Yucca mountain in Nevada".
Work on this site is no longer funded.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:53:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.