Nuclear Power

[Lateralthinking1]

Ironic when you are so literal in your assumptions about my name. As you yourself explain, names are likely to be descriptions of subjects unrelated to the individual. What makes you think that "Lateralthinking1" as a name should say something about its owner? As it happens, my one does not apply to anything other than itself.

(PS You would, of course, appreciate that Lateral does not only juxtapose with Linear but also with Literal. Incidentally, I have good reasons to believe that you live close to the border).

[Bryn]

I make no such assumption. I recommend "Po: Beyond Yes and No". Not maybe as useful a tool for thought as Hal Waddington's sadly unfinished "Tools for Thought", but well worth a read, just the same.

[Lateralthinking1]

Steady - You can't start giving the average Joe "Tools for Thought". As soon as anyone could say GCHQ, there would be a million marauding Che Guevaras without the "impotence of ignorance".

[Bryn]

Re. "Tools for Thought", it looks like Hal jumped into the Tardis for this particular edition (note the claimed publication date).

[Lateralthinking1]

BBC, "The operators of a stricken Japanese nuclear plant have apologised for a "mistake" in reporting a radiation spike 10 million times above normal". Some very slightly better news then. LT1 continues to argue his case vehemently and to gather information in a fair and balanced way, the only one apart from johnb to do so on this thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327

[Bryn]

... LT1 continues to argue his case vehemently and to gather information in a fair and balanced way, ...

That is a baseless claim, L1. There is nothing "fair and balanced" in accusing those who challenge your 'information' of being involved in the nuclear industry. A retraction and apology is called for there, I think.

[Lateralthinking1]

"Accusing"? Interesting word. Yours not mine. "Those". No, not plural, just one.

Let's recall. The first was a question, unanswered. The second was "My guess is that", not commented on. In each case, I made it quite clear that the person didn't have to comment. There was no comment. I am left to guess. Free expression. Nothing awful about it at all if it were the case but it might have shone some light.

If someone is going to say consistently that another contributor is ignorant, then it is useful to know whether any of the facts presented are likely to be accurate. This is the case particularly when, unlike mine, the vast majority are not via links. Same with you. By contrast, I have set out my background including at the UN.

You seem to me to want some sort of outlet. It was fun to have a bit of a knockabout but you now appear to be more interested in me than the topic itself. Of course, it might be a useful method of distraction if you had a professional reason to do so or it might just be you. If it is the former, it is unlikely we will be told.

In the week ahead, more than happy to discuss developments but will be referring people back to the topic. There is also a question of tone - less others are ignorant, others don’t know, others aren’t thinking and more but the difficulty there is, in fact it is more like, the figures I have show etc. That would be a lot nicer I think, don‘t you?

[Flosshilde]

LT1 continues to argue his case vehemently and to gather information in a fair and balanced way, the only one apart from johnb to do so on this thread:

Oh dear - do I detect a touch of the Simons in this? Referring to oneself in the third person & make a claim that one is the only person (bar one) to be fair & balanced is rather dangerous. It's up to other people to decide if your information is 'fair' & 'balanced'.

[Bryn]

I am happy to leave it to those who read through the contributions to this tread to decided for themselves where the different contributors are 'coming from', and who (whether in the singular or plural) questions relating to working in the nuclear industry might have been aimed at. My main concern has been that poorly informed scaremongering not obscure the very real problems associated with the nuclear industry, the geographical and geological siting of reactor installations, and other related safety issues associated not only with the nuclear power industry, but other power generation technologies. I do not have the technological nouse to comment on the specifics of the the current major problems at the Fukushima plant, but feel happier that the management of those problems be in the hands of nuclear engineers than the those who have little or no knowledge of the technologies involved.

As to your earlier point re. Fast Breeder Reactors. I strongly recommend you do a bit of basic background reading. The term is a useful description of the process involved, the "fast" referring to "fast neutrons" (as against "thermal breeder" reactors", and "breeder" to the generation of more nuclear fuel during the process. Any other connotation is in the eye of the beholder of the name. A quick perusal of Walt Patterson's "Nuclear Power", a book aimed at the non-expert, would have cleared up this confusion.

[Lateralthinking1]

Perhaps it is time for a summary of my own position. When I started this thread, I was clear that I was a lifelong opponent of nuclear power. My politics essentially began in 1974. I was born in 1962. No one has argued that the technology then was safer than it is now. While improvements have been made, I think that the speed at which the world moved into nuclear power at the outset was wrong. Insufficient time was permitted to develop the technology safely. Environmental damage was caused. Health in some situations was put at risk to the extent that people were moved out of areas deemed uninhabitable. The dangers were understated. And none of this was actually necessary. There was no talk, for example, of climate change. While in some respects, life has moved on, many of the world's nuclear power plants are effectively 1974 or earlier. Many of the aspects of the industry have not moved wholly in line with technological advances and "old nuclear" is increasingly justified on the basis of global environmental change - both climate change and the depletion of the earth's resources. Such arguments are strong although few, if any, would prefer there to be a mix of power plants rather than entirely modern ones. While it is understandable that in poorer advanced countries there simply may not be the money to have all the latest technology, many of the long-in-the-tooth nuclear plants are in countries of considerable wealth. Obviously this makes the retention of older plants considerably less justifiable.

Comparative risk assessments have the potential to inform. We have heard about cornish rocks, the granite in Whitehall and CBT scans in terms of radiation. More widely, we have heard about the risks of local petrol stations, natural phenomena such as earthquakes and tsunamis, and the traditional means of energy production. There are, of course, risks with flying, crossing the road and staying indoors. And we have heard about the risks of power cuts and worse should nuclear be curtailed. When clear, honest and accurate, all such things provide useful and necessary context. There are at least two strands to this concept - the old and the new. The industry has to perform a balancing act between arguing that "new nuclear" is much safer but that "old nuclear" was pretty safe too. This is not entirely beyond the pale. It is not necessarily inconsistent with its history, its objectives and the ways of logic. But realistically the world works to other logic too. You can see many of those trends in this debate. For example, perceived risk can be as powerful in shaping attitudes and behaviour as actual risk. When cause and effect are experienced personally, perceptions frequently change or become more intense, and there is greater scrutiny of previously accepted practices. As a consequence there is a more rapid flow of information and misinformation. There is likely to be more emotion and that is a real and significant part of being human too. To my mind, and I realise that is simply one perspective, the industry has rarely been a willing teacher. It tends to select those who think in its terms and speak its language and select out the rest. When challenged, it is frequently appalled that it is being drawn down to the level of the comprehensive. But what it provides is comprehensive. It applies to everyone and it cannot realistically expect to remain in its own domain when what it does has wider impacts.

Teaching requires two-way dialogue. It is ok to say that the Richter Scale actually hasn’t been used for a while but less so to cut off when it is suggested that in the mid-range the current scale is little different. It is ok to say that someone should understand the technology better before launching into opinion but less so to ignore or pour scorn on questions relating to the interconnectivity of electrical power to individual units. It is ok to say that someone should be more aware that the location of Heysham is coastal but less so not to address questions about the wind direction when it comes to locating plants on both the western and eastern coasts. It is ok to say that the use of sea water is helpful in emergencies but less so not to address questions about the limitations of its use in certain specific circumstances. If much of this for those of us of a certain age runs close to our original wariness - the fact that we were assured that specific things were very unlikely to happen which then did several times in 20 years - that is as it is, unless the relationship changes. Sometimes it takes a disaster for that to occur. And, yes, like it or not, there is a political dimension too. There is in everything, however inconvenient that may be at times. One of my main concerns is about individual freedom of choice in matters of health. It seems to me that while risk can never be eliminated from living, people can make decisions about their lives. Do we go to Cornwall, walk up Whitehall, live next door to a petrol garage, have a CT scan, have a home with gas central heating, cross that road? Nuclear, by contrast, is more compromised in what it offers. Sure, you can live next door to a plant or live 150 miles from one but in the unlikely or rare event of a serious incident, its impacts are potentially wider ranging. There is less scope for personal management in any assessment of risk, perceived or actual.

Finally, growth. I introduced a framework here that some have taken to be a distraction. We have spoken about life and death, power and impotence, ego and ignorance, etc. I did this for a reason. It was to place the industry in the context of wider living for that is indeed, like everything, precisely where it sits. Of course, all of the terminology has a specific scientific meaning but that doesn’t mean that it is divorced from everything else. What we have here, in my opinion, is an industry that understandably wishes to grow, to develop, to improve on its own specialist knowledge, to expand, and what it offers others is a maintenance of lifestyle or even growth there. It has the power of knowledge and management. Others have the power of consumerism. The last thing you want is someone with a non-science degree, who isn’t satisfied with consumer choice, and wants a broader concept of choice for the individual. The fact that I don’t fly, I don’t own a car, and come from a family in which most couples have no children or just one. That is my life, our lives. That those in other households fly ten or twenty times each year, have three or four cars, and three or four kids. Those are their lives. Of course, they are. I am in absolutely no doubt though that in this world of resources becoming meagre, where there is mass starvation still, and where many in the advanced countries appear to me to be partying like it's 1999 with little consideration for the welfare of their own kids and subsequent generations, this is morally wrong. Ironically, if any people should be living like that, it is those who have no kids at all. I would not force people to reduce their consumption. I would make it considerably more expensive for them to consume by taxing according to each additional unit of consumption. It is, of course, a political point, this - in some ways highly political - but it is scientifically important because it challenges the need for nuclear in the west at all. You don’t need to have huge amounts of knowledge of the figures or the technology if subscribing to this view.

[Lateralthinking1]

This information might be helpful to those who fear reports about low levels of radiation now being detected as far east as Florida and want to gain some perspective before it reaches here too. Incidentally, before we start, iodine tablets are only recommended for the under 40s. In older people, they could cause damage so there is really no protection for them if it all gets much worse. Handy hint: Consider kelp but get advice first from your GP. It is children who are most likely to be affected by high levels of radiation and who would need it. Young adults will be the least severely affected wouldn't you know. May I emphasise that the chances of high levels of radiation here remain small. There is absolutely no need for any immediate action and the most likely scenario by far is that no action will need to be taken. By contrast, farmers may have good reason to be financially concerned.

Up until now, the authorities have been emphasising the word "uranium". However, plutonium has now been found outside the plant. Post 98 now looks to be very relevant. The poster mentions that Melox has most of the shares in plutonium Mixed-Oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel. Melox is French and heavily subsidised by the French Government. However, it is France and Britain who are the principal exporters of plutonium Mixed-Oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel. British Nuclear Fuels is owned by the British Government. There is hence a very close Anglo-French link in the business of MOX and that link is governmental.

The Libyan uprising began on 27 February. Reaction to it here was initially contradictory. Meanwhile, the Japanese earthquake was anticipated by scientists here on 4 March and it occurred on 11 March. In that very same week, the British and the French suddenly escalated the calls for intervening in Libya, mentioning not only the need for a no-fly zone but a readiness to seize the oil from Gaddafi. This could, of course, be purely a coincidence and it could be that the possibility of problems caused by a tsunami to nuclear plants in Japan was entirely unforeseen. Similarly, what this in turn might do to the very future of nuclear power, if and when it happened, might not have been anticipated. And the potential for Britain and France to come under severe international scrutiny might also not have been considered. Still, if this were not the case, Libya would be a wonderfully useful distraction. Should you be interested, there's a newsworthy conference in London today. It is about saving people from a brutal regime.

Why should Britain and France come under severe scrutiny? In 2009, the Pacific Pintail owned by British Nuclear Fuels was one of two gunboats that transported 65 elements of MOX from France to Japan, the first MOX transport to Japan for nearly eight years. It was the largest shipment of plutonium in history. The MOX fuel elements contained a total of 1,800 kg plutonium, enough to make 225 nuclear weapons. Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who worked at the UK's Nuclear Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston between 1951 and 1957, says: "If a terrorist group acquired MOX fuel, it could relatively easily chemically separate the plutonium and fabricate a nuclear explosive". And hence, I guess, the need for Japan hitherto to keep foreign help out. They didn't know who they would be letting in. It wasn't that they were necessarily the ones with the most expertise.

Funnily enough, following proof of falsification of documents on MOX, including in Britain, the export of MOX had been stopped in 2002. This only occurred after a regional referendum in Japan which voted against the use of MOX on the basis that it was far more dangerous than other forms of fuel. Much of the MOX that was there was dumped and became unusable. So did the Japanese people actually know that from 2009, MOX was being used there again? Do many of them realise it even now? And is it British and French MOX fuel rods that were being used? I would guess so. Who else could it be? A word on plutonium. Given its long half-life, some 24,000 years, once produced, plutonium remains a deadly environmental contaminant and a potential fuel for nuclear weapons virtually forever. The biggest amount of plutonium Mixed-Oxide (MOX) in the world is here in Britain at Sellafield. Nice.

Because MOX was not exactly lucrative in most of the last decade, British Nuclear Fuels appear somewhat desperate for a bailout in this particular enterprise. It appears that it is only the French who have expertise in this area and can come to the financial rescue. There have already been discussions. Interestingly, EDF, heavily subsidised by the French Government, stands to gain heavily from our new nuclear programme. Perhaps it is something of a trade-off? And next month, the regulation of the industry here is to be handed over from a body that is answerable to the Health and Safety Executive and hence politically accountable to one that simply represents the industry. The industry, which will ultimately be very French, will principally be only accountable to itself. I hope to be back later with some news on shareholders in this trade but unsurprisingly getting information is difficult.

[Mahlerei]

Just heard on the news that (very) small traces of Iodine-131 have been detected by monitors in Glasgow.

[Lateralthinking1]

Mahlerei - I genuinely hope that it doesn't get any worse. When I mentioned several days ago that it had been predicted by some that it would go around the globe, this was met with scorn, demands for source material, and accusations of ignorance - Lat.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Mahlerei - I genuinely hope that it doesn't get any worse. When I mentioned several days ago that it had been predicted by some that it would go around the globe, this was met with scorn, demands for source material, and accusations of ignorance - Lat.

The nuclear industry has been in denial of its true risks ever since it was set up. Anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant, a freak, a fanatic, doesn't live in the real world, should get a life, is exaggerating, etc.

[Frances_iom]

is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium on your reading list ? especially the bit about toxity ?