Posted By Tabs
Yet another well-researched and calmly argued point of view from Mr C. (Yawn).

I personally resent being compared to Nazis, even as a joke. Belittling the atrocities of the Third Reich will never be acceptable in my opinion.

As safety professionals we know perhaps better than most, that nothing is perfect - a Chernobyl-type event could reoccur ... especially in a private sector plant. We have all seen shortcuts and compromise to make budget targets and time frames.

It does not mean I am not in favour of nuclear power - it is just that we must remember the potential cost and weigh that up against other factors. Let's not dismiss caution as "stupid".

Posted By Pete Longworth
I agree with Geoff here. I have no time for Clarkson. He is a hypocrite of the first water but he has found a topic to exploit and he is doing that for all he is worth. His comments in the article are so over the top that they are entertaining. What is disturbing most of you is that fact that there is always a nugget of truth somewhere in what he says and that is what resonates with the public, but do you honestly think that his comments or those of Richards Littlejohn or Madeley will have any adverse effect on industrial accident rates or workplace fatalities. Not a chance, but maybe what you do will have a beneficial effect.
Ignore him or laugh at him.

Posted By teaboy
i cant believe the amount of people that take this seriously, and the amount of time they spend on it.

i think its about time we got over ourselves

Posted By steven n
"wind turbines dont produce enough to power a rampant rabbit"

Funny man,though he only says things to get peoples goat (and it looks like hes succeeded)

Posted By John J
'As safety professionals we know perhaps better than most, that nothing is perfect - a Chernobyl-type event could reoccur ... especially in a private sector plant. We have all seen shortcuts and compromise to make budget targets and time frames'.

On what basis are you making this statement?
The nuclear industry is the most heavily regulated in the country - private or otherwise.

Posted By Paul Duell
The problem is not that we H&S professionals take him seriously. I don't suppose any of us do.

The problem is that some people DO take him seriously - see the comments posted on his column by some of his readers. Some of these are going to be people that we're trying to influence to "do" H&S properly - while they're believing that what Clarkson says about us must be true because it's in a national newspaper.

Posted By John J
1986: "Amber alert" (indicating an emergency in one building and a threat to the rest of the plant)" at Sellafield reprocessing plant, UK
1986: Release of 13 tonnes of radioactive carbon dioxide from Transfynydd nuclear power plant (UK)
1986: Three workers suffer contamination at the Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
1993: Refuelling machine malfunctions at the Wylfa nuclear power plant (UK)
1973: 35 workers at the Sellafield reprocessing plant are contaminated following a technical failure (UK)
1981: Release of 300-times the normal discharge level of Iodine-131 at Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
1985: Accidental radioactive release into the sea from Hinkley Point nuclear power station (UK)
1957: Three tonnes of uranium catch fire at the Windscale reprocessing plant (now Sellafield UK)
1977: Sea water runs into the cooling circuit of Hunterston nuclear power plant (UK)
1983: Sellafield reprocessing plant discharges highly radioactive wastes directly into the sea (UK)

Where have I been? Working in the industry for 25 years which will undoubtably make me bias.

The events you listed are not Chernobyl type events and even the Windscale pile fire 50 years ago was not on the same scale and was dealt with without loss of life.

Current reactors have so many safeguards it takes more effort to keep them going than stop them. New designs are passive so even more reliable.

Apologies for being touchy on the subject but I have had 25 years of people telling me what happens in my industry without having been involved in it. You have probably had the usual reaction when your out socially and tell somebody your a H&S professional, imagine adding 'in the Nuclear industry' to it.

I agree with your comment on the nazi/taliban type comments being levelled at us. I doubt individuals willing to throw that accusation out would do so in a one on one situation.

Regards,

John

Posted By Tabs
"Apologies for being touchy "

No apology needed at all John, you asked me what I based my comments on, and I answered. For someone in the industry for 25 years, I would expect you to be a realist and expect me to quote this type of failure.

My point is that whilst mechanical plant and humans are involved, there will always be a chance of failure, and a ten year lack of serious error does not mean it has been eradicated forever.

None of them reached Chernobyl significance, but they all point to imperfect systems... which was my argument.

As for me being touchy, I think you have just seen what gets my goat big time :-) Thank you for your support.

Posted By Ron Hunter
J Knight says "Uranium is a fossil fuel" What????

Posted By Dave Wilson
Its always a shame when a safety professional always looks at JUST the safety angle.

What about looking at the whole picture?

What is a viable alternative wind, coal, gas water solar they all have problems??

How are they going to fare in this century?

Who is going to pay for this?

If we do not do something now and plan for the future then we will all be unstuck in 50 to 100 years time.

Forget JC I for one think he is a really funny guy and be honest is probably saying what most people are thinking!

Posted By Brigham
J Knight says
"I don't think JC is primarily an 'entertainer' any more, he has gone beyond that to become a 'commentator', and as such he is a right of centre conservative. This guy is not just making jokes and money, he is making political points."

And JK you're not making leftist political points whenever you can? apart from you not being very funny, whats the problem?

Posted By Andrew Lochlyn Ure
Tabs

My comments weren't aimed at your contribution to thread; neither had I assumed you were anti-nuclear. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

My posting was a general observation in regard to the various interviews I have listened to, particularly on Radio 4 last week, where the pressure groups continually cite Chernobyl as the prime example of why we shouldn't pursue nuclear energy. Their point seems to be that nuclear energy is the epitomy of filthy, dangerous technology. The RBMK reactor that powered Chernobyl probably was, but my point is that I don't think it's a relevant example.

I agree with you - I don't think anything is 100% safe, but the nuclear debate to me demonstrates how the public mind can deal with the concept of hazard but is very poor at understanding risk. Just seeing the radioactive trefoil will send a lot of people running for the bunker in advance of the Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman.

I also agree with Dave Wilson's comments. I think the pragmatic solution is a mixture of a number of sources of energy, not sole reliance on one, which is how we've arrived at the mess we're in now (and this comes from someone who has worked in upstream oil for the last ten years). It baffles me as to why our Government isn't going hammer and tongs to utilise all the various forms of available energy which are in some cases are quite literally on our doorstep. How much do you hear about wave derived energy, for example, despite living on a rocky Island in the North Atlantic?

Finally - I appreciate that this is a highjacked thread, but this is far more interesting than talking about Jeremy Clarkson!

Cheers

Andrew

Posted By GeoffB4
Brigham, I think you underestimate JK. His joke about "...uranium being a fossil fuel (it comes from rock)..." was very funny.

Posted By M Forbes
JC is 100% correct.

As for the poster quoting the nuclear accidents in the UK. . . . these accidents you quoted occur prior to and during the early stages of the HASAWA and before there was a real focus on H&S. As far as im aware there hasn't been anything serious in the last decade or so. . . isn't this proff that the current control measures are effective. . . sure something may go wrong and people may die. . . . i live next to St Fergus gas plant. . . theres a chance that could blow up and kill anybody in the area. . . . does that mean we should put a halt to the gas industry?

It is impossible to keep everyone happy, windmills are apparently "unsightly" and "noisy" - coal power stations produce too much emissions - gas also produces too much emmisions. . . Solar power isn't effective enough in this country and would waste "valuable countryside" for fiels of solar panels. Greenpeace will never be happy, they are like a pile of screaming kids trying to get their own way and i have NO time for them.

So much could go wrong in any industry, and nuclear is a risk like any other. Sure the consequences are more severe, hence its regulated a lot more seriously. As for comparing it to chernobyl, this power plant was neglected the cause was attributed to
1) A flawed reactor design
2) Inadequately trained personnel operating the equipment
3) Disregard for safety.

Do you think any of this would happen in a UK power plant in this day and age.

At the end of the day your car could blow up. .. u still drive it.
Your house could spring a gas leak and ignite you still use gas
Your tv could go up in flames, you still watch it.

There are risks with everything! If people want power without any guarenteed enviromental damage, that can actually power the whole UK all year round. Stop complaining about nuclear and have a cuppa.

My points of view

M Forbes

Posted By GeoffB4
John are you really sticking to your definition of uranium as being a fossil fuel?

Posted By J Knight
Hi Geoff,

Yes, its an older definition, not mine, definition; fossil didn't only mean something found in rock derived from living matter, it meant anything found in rock. And as I say, it has similar attributes to its fellow fossil fuels, and it doesn't help too much to try and think of it as something different. It has to be dug out, its a limited resource, and, btw, we ain't got none,

John

Posted By M Forbes
Tabs,

I did read the whole article and my comments were not targetted specifically at yourself, more a general overview of how i view nuclear power. Also i never criticised you, I have respect for opinions and the basis of yours is true. At no point did i say there wasn't a risk, no1 can say that about nuclear power. What i am saying is it has the most stringent control measures in place and is EXTREMELY unlikely to go to meltdown.

Modern reactors are actually built in such a way so that in the event of a core meltdown (such as in three mile island - usa -1979)that the reactor can be completely destroyed without the dispersal of radioactive material.

What made chernobyl a disaster was the fact that they were using a defective reactor, with no training and no health and safety regard.

Now im no expert on Nuclear Reactors, but im guessing if the modern design in 1979 can have a core meltdown with no serious radioactive dispersal, in this day and age the chances for a meltdown anywhere near the scale of chernobyl must be very very minimal.

Now to re-iterate what i said earlier i live next to a huge gas plant, St Fergus, which handles nearly all north sea gas. Could you tell me why no-one is up in arms about building gas refineries as there is more risk of this refinery bursting into flames and exploding killing all local residents, than there is of a nuclear power plant melting down.

The problem is the word NUCLEAR. People are scared of this word. Due to many things (cold war, iran and usa tensions) and find it hard to differentiate.

As for your last statement, a nuclear power plant in this day and age in the UK would not be able to run a defective reactor. FACT

Everyone in the control room of these plants are HIGHLY trained.

And a complete disregard for safety is something that doesnt really exist within "professional" industries anymore.
I know that everyone in my industry (oil and gas) just accepts that if they want this job they have to respect the relevant safety procedures. I would be pretty certain the same applies to other such professional industries such as nuclear power.

Anyway ten years accident free is a good measure of how succesfull the systems in place are now, and i hope they continue to be as sucessfull int he future,

To finalise though, my earlier post was in no way targeted at yourself, perhaps you took the fact that im pro-nuclear as an insult to your undecided opinion.

Regards

M Forbes

Posted By J Knight
John,

Please read my comemnt about the definition of fossil and my reasons for using it as I do; you will find corroboration at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fossil if you look at the 1619 (original) definition,

John

Posted By Rob Campbell
I think Nuclear is not only the cleanest, most viable fuel source in the forseable future. As has been said in a number of above posts it is unfortunate that the word it's self is intrisinctly linked to mass destruction.

It's undeniable that cases such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are epic in their scale and brought a phenominal cost, but there contribution to the current stringent standards and safety records also goes un attributed. Further more it's also conviniently forgotten the inherrant health risks that other forms of power have produced. For one i'd be very interested to see the number of cases of deaths/illness relating to the coal mining industry (for instance) in comparison.

I think. However, that more emphasis should be put on consuming less power as opposed to creating more. We're at the height of the electronic age and consuming more power than ever surely this is a route cause and as such should be addressed with as much urgency as fueling the demand.

Posted By Colin Reeves
"However, that more emphasis should be put on consuming less power as opposed to creating more. We're at the height of the electronic age and consuming more power than ever surely this is a route cause and as such should be addressed with as much urgency as fueling the demand."

In general I agree. However, achieving this is not easy! I recall when I was a nipper, knee high to Noah, street lights were turned off on a timer late in the evening. Nowadays, they are on throughout the night on the grounds of the 'elf n safety of people walking along the streets.

Umm, it is us who are instrumental in consuming a lot of power. Gulp, should we resign? ;-)

colin