David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:11:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Adam
Aglionby wrote this:-

Glad you mentioned that, Dalgety Bay, radium contamination from
aircarft dial manufactu

http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/publications/dalgety_bay_reports.aspx
has some more up to date reports.

Not regarded a major risk in that quantity

It is a while since I read some of the information. However, from
memory there would be a visible "burn", a red patch the skin, if an
adult was to hold some of the found particles against their skin for
around 15 minutes. In other words fairly "hot" and obviously much
more radioactive than a luminous watch.


The major risk is ingestion, which would expose people to the
particle for a long time. Adults are unlikely to be exposed to major
risk, but children could be. Children eat sand sometimes.


Then they deserve all the worms they get.


I assume you have never BEEN to the beach at Dounreay. I am not
surprised, No one else has either. I've been close. looked out over the
sea a bit further up the road. No reason to stay more than a couple of
minutes. Vile place.


There is no beach to speak of. There is no public access to the beach
such as it is.


The particles in question are heavy and wont be easily shifted by tidal
movement.

Dounreay in short represents no safety issues to the general public that
couldn't be solved by simply closing that stretch of shoreline.

It was a fast breeder reactor, set up to breed weapons grade ,material,
built to a lax 50;'s standard and badly managed thereafter.

It simply has no bearing on discussions about new nuclear. Its just
always dredged up by the anti - nuclear lobby as an example of things
that will go wrong. But its history. It bears about as much relevance as
citing boiler explosions in Stephensons rocket does to the safety issues
of a modern steam turbine.

Let's add in a few facts.

The DFR fast breeder reactor was a small one. Only 14MW. However it is
reckoned it did add 600GWh of generation, and reduction in carbon
concomitant with that. At today's wind turbine prices (10p a unit), that
represents £60M of generated power. Its main function was not power
generation though. It was breeding of nuclear materials and as a
research facility.


The PFR reactor at 250MW capacity ran for 20 years. at a putative 80%
load factor, and 10p a unit that's generated £3.5bn of carbon free power.

Th capital cost of a new nuclear set of comparable output would be less
than a billion.


That needs to be offset against the clean up costs. In any *rational*
argument.

I note with interest the coincidence of your name with

http://www.hansentransmissions.com/en/

who make windpower gearboxes.