On 31.01.2013 15:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/01/13 13:28, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/13 10:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that is surprising, for a government is it not? Erm no
its not. I seem to recall the reason in this country why a lot
of companies eventually did not embrace nuclear was due to the
costs involved which mainly were a tax from Government,
disguised as a cost of decommisioning levy or some such tosh.
Brian

And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never
happen.

Except that if you let them operate without any liability they
will operate shoddily and the chances of one happening will
increase substantially


well no, they don't operate that way - we have a nuclear regulator
that is capable of and does, fine them. And is, in the limit, able to
remove their operating licenses.

Would insurance have prevented Fukushima? No. would lack of insurance
make it more likely? No.

Would a better equipped nuclear regulator with an eye to the very
real risks of tsunami have lessened or eliminated the chance of it
happening? yes.

Have the world's reactors become safer as a result of nuclear
regulators insisting on better diversity of SCRAM cooling in reactors
in emergency conditions? Too bloody right.

How many people died as a result of Fukushima's release of radiation?
None. How many people will die? None What is the total death count
due to the *tsunami* at Fukushima nuclear plant? Three. What is the
total death count of the Japanese tsunami? around 20,000. Do you
think that forcing all the coastal towns in Japan to take out
insurance against a tsunami would in general have made them safer
places to live ESPECIALLY if the insurance bore no relation to the
amount of flood defences they might, or might not, have erected?

Yet Nick Cleggs argument is that there must be a total clean up
insurance fund available for an accident that MIGHT happen, although
he doesn't say HOW it might happen, to a plant in tsunami free UK,
based on a single event in Japan whose impact was far far greater
than the piffling amount of radioactivity actually released and whose
clean up will is nothing compared with et costs of rebui8lding the
rest of Japan's coastal regions.

It is pure anti nuclear politics. It is not rational.

Very well written!

Too bad that you have no grandchildren.
Wade Allison has grandchildren and want them to live in a world that
has nuclear energy. And he is not a climate denialist:
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/14...on-and-reason/
Dr. Allison has been teaching physics at the University of Oxford for
over 40 years (medical physics, radiation physics, nuclear physics,
and associated disciplines).

Dr. Allison explains nuclear power and, especially, radiation in this
must-read article posted just yesterday at the Nuclear Literacy
Project: €�You can appreciate nuclear and its safety, just read and
decide yourself.€� Take his advice, read, and decide yourself!

€œA Tragedy of Misunderstanding: There was no major radiation disaster
at Fukushima,€� invited talk at 2012 ANS Annual Meeting.

Dr. Allisons written evidence submitted to Britains Parliamentary
Select Commitee on Science/Technology, regarding Risk Perception and
Nuclear/Energy Infrastructure.
--
jo
"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely."
--James Watson & Francis Crick