To be fair none of us know what goes on behind closed doors when running a nuclear power station
The fact that there have been very few accidents doesn't mean that there also have been some near misses either but we'd be the last to know about that
Thanks for that link, my memory of the story was a bit hazey and that has cleared a lot of it up.
But I think we can agree here ? The accident was caused by a person rather than a fault with the reactor ?
Edit : My wife has just said she watched an episode of 'Seconds from Disaster' or somthing on National Geographic some years ago that told the story of Chernobyl.
EDIT EDIT ::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnDhIc8q7Eg&feature=related
There is part 1, the other parts are on youtube.
Here he is , and he did eventually die from heart problems , which were most likely caused by his high radiation dosage received from the accident.
Anatoly Dyatlov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No , I wouldnt say that , what a terrifying prospect indeed if all that caused the problem was human error ? That would mean no plant was safe.
The sequence of events that lead up to the accident should never have been possible in any way, shape or form , it should have been constructed so that that particular sequence of events , or anything like them , should have been impossible.
In that respect I dont agree that the person was solely at fault , the design has to come into it as one that was inherently unsafe.
If any safety routine in any facility relies solely on People's actions ,then it is not safe at all , the human factor must be removed wherever possible.
Surley there have been more deaths casued by drilling for oil and mining for coal than there have been due to Nuclear Power ?
Piper Alpha anyone ?
Do people forget that there are an untold amount of Nuclear powered Subs in the seas ??Carrying god know how many war heads as well ???
Nuclear power today is a lot more efficient and safer than it has ever been.Would I live next door to a Nuclear power plant ??No.But I don't suppose anyone would be able to.
Would I live half a mile away ?Yes.
Your only taking the same risk as living close to any other industrial business.Look at the birth defects in Corby from a Steel plant.I would live closer to a NPP than the foundry I used to work in, what with the smell and and crap that came from the amine and resins that they used.
Britain has already had a near miss with regards to a Nuclear material.Windscale - The first fire in ANY Nuclear facility.
I was refering to the material you quoted , which I highlighted in bold.
There is to this day , a 19 mile exclusion zone around the site.
There are questions as to the stability of the "Sarcophagus " containing the material , which is still in a very dangerous state.
Pripyat is still an abandoned Ghost city and likely to stay that way for good.
As Ive said before, Im neutral on this issue , Nuclear power may well be the only viable solution for power going forward , but playing down the Chernobyl accident will in no way convince people its safe or allay any fears that people may have.
Playing down an event like this will only increase mistrust and fear. That is my main point here.
That incident , in my opinion is the one that almost everyone will bring up in a discussion about the merits of nuclear power.
Going with the " It wasnt that bad " reply is not going to wash ! Going with that argument would be blatant contempt of the intelligence of your target audience.
It was bad , and no one wants it here , so convince people that it cant happen again , not that it didnt happen or wasnt so bad , is what I'm saying.
Its interesting that this one was brought up , I was looking at it earlier today.
What fascinates me is this part ...
Windscale fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How fortunate is itthat Mr Cockcroft stuck to his guns and didnt listen to the "experts" at the time ?
We also rely heavily on oil. We've fought a few wars over it. Lots of people have died for it. Both in this country and others. Also had a few environmental disasters there with it leaking. Oil is also used in power stations. We could also build lots of nuclear power stations, have lots ofelectic cars and sod the Gulf.
What do you do with them once they come to the end of their life cycle?
Or is that a problem for future generations to think about
What do you do once the oil has ran out?
Or is that a problem for future generations to think about
Nuclear won't solve all the issues when oil runs out
One I can think is flying seeming as no one has built an electric areoplane and i wouldn't suggest nuclear powered aircraft either
//static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif