Saturday, March 26, 2011
NUCLEAR - SCOTSMAN LETTER
This is in the Scotsman today. It was not edited and I am very happy that it was published because, relatively short though it is, I pulled no punches. I do not think such strong words would have been published a few years ago. The online comments are largely supportive.
Also the Dundee Courier has published my response to Tom Minogue, previously published by the Herald, and there is an intelligent response to it in the Herald today which Tom intends to respond to.
John Connor (Letters, 25 March) suggests that people living near nuclear power plants be trained in taking iodine tablets as part of being "educated in the potential dangers".
I am all in favour of education in the facts about nuclear power. For example, the amount of radiation released by nuclear reactors is, per kwh produced, 4,025 times less than that released by coal burning ones.
Even the release of radioactivity at Three Mile Island, very similar to that in Japan, has recently been acknowledged by no less than George Monbiot, the high priest of eco-scaremongering, as insufficient to harm an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping, albeit it took him 32 years to say it.
By any objective test nuclear is certainly hundreds and arguably thousands of times safer than any practical alternative and the dishonest scaremongering of Luddites has cost the human race four decades of inexpensive power.
Also the Dundee Courier has published my response to Tom Minogue, previously published by the Herald, and there is an intelligent response to it in the Herald today which Tom intends to respond to.
Labels: Forth crossing, letters, nuclear
Comments:
<< Home
Woes deepen over radioactive water at nuke plant, sea contamination
Exposure to such an environment for four hours would raise the risk of dying in 30 days. Hidehiko Nishiyama, spokesman for the government's nuclear safety agency, said the figure is ''quite high'' but authorities must find a way to pump out the water without sending workers too close to push ahead with the restoration work.
Exposure to such an environment for four hours would raise the risk of dying in 30 days. Hidehiko Nishiyama, spokesman for the government's nuclear safety agency, said the figure is ''quite high'' but authorities must find a way to pump out the water without sending workers too close to push ahead with the restoration work.
Crossing the road will "raise the risk of dying" - the important questionn is is it a significant risk. I not that not only does CH not feel able to provide evidence for any of the claims he has been shot out of the water over on previous posts but neither he nor any Luddite propagandist is willing to take my bet that fewer people will die from this than from a car crash. Indeed that "raise the risk" is the very worst that can be found it seems likely that the casualties of this "catastrophe" will remain at zero.
So it hasn't killed anyone to date so therefore carry on as if its safe to carry on this failed technology.
"Breach of Containment" in Japan? (The Three Most Feared Words in the Lexicon of a Nuclear Scientist)
"Breach of Containment" in Japan? (The Three Most Feared Words in the Lexicon of a Nuclear Scientist)
Hi there very cool site!! Man .. Excellent .. Amazing ..
I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also? I’m glad to search out a lot of useful info
here in the publish, we’d like work out extra strategies in this regard..
T H A N K S F O R S H A R I N G
Post a Comment
I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also? I’m glad to search out a lot of useful info
here in the publish, we’d like work out extra strategies in this regard..
T H A N K S F O R S H A R I N G
<< Home
