PDA

View Full Version : is dounreay first to go?



katarina
07-Mar-12, 16:35
It seems to be top of the list in any case!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-flooding

billmoseley
07-Mar-12, 17:53
by the time it happens we will be long gone so not our worry :lol:

Phill
07-Mar-12, 18:22
It seems to be top of the list in any case!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-flooding
'cos it's alfiebeticul!

sids
07-Mar-12, 18:57
It seems to be top of the list in any case!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-flooding

The map seems to say there is no risk of flooding at Dounreay. No risk is just about safe enough for me.

Whitewater
08-Mar-12, 00:01
According to map there is no risk of flooding at Dounreay.

Perhaps when they construct new ones flood risk will be built into the safety case. The modern technology is so far ahead of that of the early power stations which were constructed to late 40s and early 50s design (which was of course best available at the time) that public risk will be much less. And don't forget that all through the life of both reactors at Dounreay the public has always been safe, and that is after 57 (approx) years of nuclear power in Caithness.

Whitewater
08-Mar-12, 00:03
It seems to be top of the list in any case!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-flooding

It's top of the map Katarina as Dounreay is furthest north, it is not top of the risk.

catran
08-Mar-12, 00:13
It's top of the map Katarina as Dounreay is furthest north, it is not top of the risk.

Is the Guardian as good as one makes out?

secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-12, 22:42
It seems to be top of the list in any case!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-floodingLol! Rob Edwards is a lifelong anti-nuclear activist. I wouldn't believe anything he writes about anything nuclear, or about anything else for that matter....

David Banks
10-Mar-12, 23:56
And don't forget that all through the life of both reactors at Dounreay the public has always been safe, and that is after 57 (approx) years of nuclear power in Caithness.

Without intending to be offensive, I wonder what world you have been living in.

Having left Caithness in 1965, I did not keep up-to-date with Dounreay's safety record, but I do know of one "very close call" prior to 1965 - from a very reliable source.

. . . and I hope they keep the Dome, as a reminder.

Whitewater
11-Mar-12, 22:31
Without intending to be offensive, I wonder what world you have been living in.

Having left Caithness in 1965, I did not keep up-to-date with Dounreay's safety record, but I do know of one "very close call" prior to 1965 - from a very reliable source.

. . . and I hope they keep the Dome, as a reminder.

I beleive they did have a leak in the old heat exchange building at DFR about that time, I'm not too sure of the detail as I was out of the country at the time. However, that information can be found fairly easily if required. But there was no "close call" as you claim. The public were not endangered, nobody was evacuated from their work at Dounreay let alone any of the close neighbours, Thurso or Caithness.

Certainly doesn't sound like a "close call" to me.

Southern-Gal
12-Mar-12, 08:37
Is there any truth in the figures I have read on children getting leukemia/lymphoma more often in the Thurso area than in other areas of Caithness?
Does the presence of Doonreay affect property prices near it?
Are the beaches safe?

David Banks
13-Mar-12, 01:54
I beleive they did have a leak in the old heat exchange building at DFR about that time, I'm not too sure of the detail as I was out of the country at the time. However, that information can be found fairly easily if required. But there was no "close call" as you claim. The public were not endangered, nobody was evacuated from their work at Dounreay let alone any of the close neighbours, Thurso or Caithness.

Certainly doesn't sound like a "close call" to me.

The close call I was talking about was one which was NOT made known to the public, and knowledge of the event was "squashed" by the powers that be at that time. I doubt details would be available to the public.

I am very confident of the information I have, and object to the tone (and the confidence) of your statement that THERE WAS NO close call as I have claimed.

We will have to agree to disagree.

George Brims
14-Mar-12, 23:03
There's an interesting tale there. The science of small-number statistics is an area ripe for manipulation and plain old mistakes. What I mean is, say you have a population of thousands of people, and a rate of something like leukemia that's naturally very low, so that on average you would expect to see 5 cases in the area over a decade. Well without there being any cause for panic, you might easily see 8 cases in one population and 2 in another in the same time period. That's just natural randomness.
However, something else came into play with the numbers for the Thurso area. Someone (I forget who) drew a circle centred on Dounreay, and pointed out there seemed to be an excessive number of cases of childhood leukemia for the number of people living inside the circle. But if the circle was enlarged a few miles the Eastern half of Thurso was included (you know, the bit with all the "atomic" housing!). This roughly doubled the size of the studied population, and only added ONE more child with leukemia, bringing the rate per thousand *below* the national average. That was clear manipulation of statistics.
The beaches are not that safe. There is constant danger of hypothermia!

secrets in symmetry
16-Mar-12, 23:49
However, something else came into play with the numbers for the Thurso area. Someone (I forget who) drew a circle centred on Dounreay, and pointed out there seemed to be an excessive number of cases of childhood leukemia for the number of people living inside the circle. But if the circle was enlarged a few miles the Eastern half of Thurso was included (you know, the bit with all the "atomic" housing!). This roughly doubled the size of the studied population, and only added ONE more child with leukemia, bringing the rate per thousand *below* the national average. That was clear manipulation of statistics. IIRC most of Thurso's "atomic" housing is in the western part of the town, not the eastern part.

The rest of your post is of course correct.