An external radiation hazard of that magnitude on a public beach I
would find difficult to contemplate.
Futile to do hypothetical sums. If you can tell us where it happened
we could investigate it, but radiation physicists are more commonly
concerned with amounts a million or so times less. What is normally
considered a hotspot is for instance where what otherwise would be a
low level discharge into the sea gets concentrated in sands and muds
which bind it like Fullers Earth.
It would probably have been more honest of us if we'd given up
providing estimated completion dates for most (all ?) of our large
engineering projects such as the M74 extension, and it's usually the
Greens who are the chief offenders although the trade unions also
rate. (Viz the Isle of Grain power station).
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby
Which isotopes and in which direction did the wind carry them and how
Ditto politicians, ditto trade union leaders, and ditto activists,
Ditto everybody where kudos, money and/or effort is involved. A bit of
trivial corner cutting with the paperwork on a commercial contract.
Exactly the same happened to us. A German company supplied hundreds of
calibration certificates for detectors they sold us. Somebody at BNFL
held a sample of them up to the light together and noticed they were
absolutely identical. The German company apologised but said said we
on behalf of BNFL had pressed them for a low price and a fast delivery
That sort of thing has gone on as long as tinkers have been selling
horses, and a salesman will promiss the world on a golden plate to get
it was always primarily a research and weapons reactor reactor AFAIK,
as was dounreay
No, they are not central They are very peripheral, since no one will
ever build a reactor that way ever again.
No, they both leaked more than is currently acceptable, and more than
any modern reactor does.
Neither has killed anyone ever. Nor is likely to.
The sites I do have concern over, were Windscale, but that's long gone,
and sellafield reprocessing, which is not well run. But they havent
killed anyone either.
Spelled out in wind turbines ? That would be a thought to conjur with.
More seriously has anybody noticed that steady numbers of these things
having been built for a few years running now, their appearance
usually as seen from the motorways is getting more and more intrusive,
and I assume we are not there yet by a * very * long chalk.
Apparently we have "achieved" a total installed capacity of 4 GW this
year, including 1 GW installed in the last 12 months.
The projected total capacity for wind generated electricity is in the
region of 35 GW, so we are about 11% there. Only 89% to go. ;-)
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:32:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
I agree that what is generated is a surprisingly small proportion of
their nominal capacity, but the two figures I quoted were defined on a
similar basis, so we are only 11% there, with another 89% to go.
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that most of the future capacity will
be built off our coasts. It therefore won't have the same visual
impact as the wind farms that have already been built, mostly on land.
Of course it will be a lot more effective at spoiling our coastal
100 nuclear power stations = 100,000 windmills, each one occupying the
land area of a nuclear power station more or less.
Thats the basic maths for a totally fossil free britain.
about 40% of all the land area doing renewable energy farms, competing
with all the other land uses like wilderness, ssi's housing.
agriculture, etc etc. Probably employing at least a million people to
Or 100 concrete block scattered round the coast the size of a couple of
football pitches. Run by maybe 30,000 skilled people.
Thats because we can`t mine uranium in the U.K. currently rely on
Australia and South Africa, if only there was somewher closer,
somewhere we have to fight a war against terror to in reality protect
interests in strip of uranium ore, somewhere like Afghanistan,
It dosen`t buy energy independence or security, nuclear is a fossil
fuel that we do not have natively, clean burning coal technology looks
like something we would be well placed to become a world player in,
something we arent in wind or nuclear.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:31:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Why on earth should it take 10 people to keep 1 turbine running? They
are remarkably maintenance-free. It is more likely to take 1 person
per 10 turbines.
Among those 30,000 people, what is the likelihood that a handful of
them will display the same lack of judgment and disregard for risk
that was demonstrated at Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island?
Almost a certainty.
Those who consider nuclear power as a "no-brainer" solution to our
energy needs probably have no brain. ;-)
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.