View Full Version : Dounreay
Did any of you read this in yesterdays Sunday Times
I was interested in people'spoints of view
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1512884,00.html
I grew up with Dounreay and although I never worked for the UKAEA I very often worked on the site as a contractor.
I will always support the idea of Dounreay in Caithness even though it now appears that mangement were a little bit culpuble in the past. Perhaps they need to be brought to book for that.
I think now about the hundreds of families who found the promised land when they arrived in Caithness. Children who grew up here and learned about technology that was in every sense cutting edge and important on a global scale. These children are now all over the globe still at the cutting edge of modern technology and paving the way for future generations.
There is no doubt that there is a problem but at the moment we have the extremists on both sides shooting arrows at one another and going over the rest of our heads.
We have a psuedo aristocrat in residence at Sandside House who may well be winding the ex Dounreay employee up for his own benefits. This landlord who actually owns Sanside Beach (surely a crime in itself) is in cahoots with the ex quite man leader of the Tory party Ian Duncan Smith (mentioned in the Times article). Their ranting and raving detracts from all the good things that Dounreay has stood for over the years.
Surely its time for the highland Council to take the bull by the horns and resolve this matter. Am I right in thinking that all Caithness councilors supported and continue to support Dounreay? If so they have been very quite about it.
Are these extremists going to be allowed to cloud the perception of others with their extreme and often deeply prejudiced Views?
I thought the Dounreay spokesman gave a very balanced and unprejudiced report on where Dounreay actually stands in this matter.
Those are my thoughts on Dounreay.
The Pepsi Challenge
07-Mar-05, 12:21
This recent story merely reaffirms everything we (the Caithness people) already know about what went on/goes on within Dounreay. It's not new. Just watch the Dounreay PR machine "spin" their way out of this one. In fact, you'll hear a similar story next year, and the year after that, and so on.
The bigger question is why nothing is done about it. Send your answers on the pin-head of an atom to...
First, a register of interests: I have worked at Dounreay…
…which is why I found this:
"On one occasion, when he refused to carry out a dangerous procedure that went against rules laid down by the government, he was charged with refusing to obey an order, he said."
… a bizarre claim.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but Dounreay isn't a military base and the employees are not members of the armed forces. 'charged with refusing to obey an order'? It was drummed into me from day one of my time there that it didn't matter who told you to do something, if it was dangerous you just didn't do it.
Admittedly, I didn't work there at the same time as this gentleman… but then I suppose that's the problem with using the experiences of a man who retired in 1989 to criticise the safety practices in place in 2005. A lot can change in 16 years.
As the spokesman for Dounreay said: "The question in our minds is why Mr Lyall took 20 years after retiring to complain".
But wait; what's this? The NDA comes into force this year and UKAEA has to 'win' the right to continue managing Dounreay? Well heck, there must be quite a few of UKAEA's competitors out there just beside themselves with delight at the fantastically convenient timing of this belated expose! :roll:
Colin Manson
07-Mar-05, 14:10
The bigger question is why nothing is done about it. Send your answers on the pin-head of an atom to...
http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm
Remember Clifford Blumfield stating to the media that the explosion in the waste shaft was not dangerous and anyone standing in the vicinity would not have been harmed?
Then..... a decade or more later (after he had been knighted or similar for services to the nuclear industry) photos of the damage showed that the concrete cover had been lifted clean off and the area was devastated?
Should have stripped him of his award and his pension too.
The Pepsi Challenge
07-Mar-05, 17:04
Sounds a whole like poor Dr. Louis Sotin, and his 'tickling the dragon' escapade.
concerned resident
07-Mar-05, 18:55
The reason why the gentleman didn’t come forward earlier, could possibly be because he receives a pension from dounreay, also he would have had to sign the secrets Act if he was a Dounreay employee. Probably because of his age, and the safety concerns, he thought to hell with it, its time the truth was told.
Something to consider is, there are not a lot of companies of Dounreay’s size that have their own propaganda department.
I have never worked there, but I had three relations who worked in Dounreay, none of them lived long enough to retire, and collect there pensions. Is that just a coincident?
I do not think this helps the tourism in Caithness, yet if I Joe Bloggs had a factory, and had put this contamination about, there would be a queue at the Courts, with people waiting to Sue, for compensation. The Government are accountable for their actions, even forty five years ago.
I have never worked there, but I had three relations who worked in Dounreay, none of them lived long enough to retire, and collect there pensions. Is that just a coincident?
That depends on what they died of… but I’d hazard a guess and say yes, it’s just a coincident… or genetics.
Good for Herbie, coming forward like that. I worked at Dounreay at the same time, in the same job, and used to go out on "District Survey", where we checked the beaches, gathered milk samples, whelks, and the like. Let me tell you, the stuff we used to monitor was scary!!! In the same vein, they used to send the Primula, Angus MacIntosh's fishing boat, with a diver on it out off the Dounreay shoreline. The diver would go down, and check the Low Effluent pipeline which ran out to sea. I personally saw a lobster, which the diver pulled out of the end of the pipe, where it was hiding, thrown on the boat. The second it hit the boat, the monitoring unit I was holding to check contamination on the diver's suit, went crazy, pegging the needle.The HP Supervisor on board grabbed the lobster and fired it right back over the side, with the general caveat that "out of sight was out of mind". Lots more stories like that, but, unlike Herbie, I'm keeping mum.......
philupmaboug
07-Mar-05, 20:41
Well Gluttboy, if you worked there when Herbie worked there then you will know the procedure for the backshift to do the night shifts work so the lads could get thier heads down!! and all the other little practices that went on, and Herbie coming forward now does nothing to change the fact that the contamination occurred in the late 70's early 80's and not now in 2005... they are just trying to keep the lid on.
What a massive over reaction from the world press (everywhere from the Gulf to South Africa) and in particular the British broadsheets! The suggestion that 2 people "may" have died from cancer as a result of working at the site and so on is just sensationalism on the biggest scale! (They may have smoked 60 a day and thus likely to die of cancer but hat is skimmed over!) The Times (which I previously rated highly) even started by planting the idea in our head that Herbie Lyall may end up like the woman in the US who spoke out and then ended up dead in a “mysterious” car crash!! How dramatic of you I though. I hope it sold a few extra copies!!
We (everyone who has ever worked at Dounreay or in industry generally) all know that safety standards in the 60s and 70s were very low in comparison with today’s standards. For example whilst building the famous dome of the Dounreay Fast Reactor the guys would never have heard of ear defenders or hard hats! It was common practice to stand at the top of a 100ft drop with no fall arrest gear! That was accepted at the time as standard practice - hence industry as a whole killed thousands of people every year. My wife’s grandfather lost his hearing as a result of working in Ravenscraig Steel works but they did not know better.
I don’t suggest for a second that any of the stories here on the message board or in Herbie’s paper are untrue I’m sure some of them are for sure but it was at a time when there was no regulation of the industry throughout the world! Please try to get things into perspective.
Radiation and contamination controls were massively different in the 70s than they are now. There used to be no segregation between contaminated areas and "clean" areas and the clothing worn was the same -this was standard practice the world over. But as our understanding of the nuclear industry grew so also did our perception on what was acceptable. In the 50s and 60s the Dounreay "Shaft" was an authorised disposal site. Try authorising that today and you would be laughed at! Clearly standards evolve and progress with time – we now have cars loaded with airbags, traction control, crumple zones, reinforced windows etc. Compared to very early cars, the cars of today are much safer
With regards to being open and honest etc I’m no expert about Dounreay’s communication dept but you just need to look at the web site and the number of documents for download is huge. There seems to be no shortage of info if you are really that interested. One of the documents for the latest public consultation they did attracted only about 12 people showing the real level of interest.
I hope that Mr Lyall is delighted with himself for trying to destroy all of the good work that was done at Dounreay during the 50s, 60s, 70, 80s etc… It certainly gave him a good career and I didn’t see him leaving in disgust! If he was really so concerned then I would have guessed he would have gone public in 1980 when he retired (or before) but I’m sure he was more concerned with getting his pension. His report comes at a convenient time for Dounreay with the introduction of the NDA and Iain Duncan Smith getting involved with his old mate Minter!
The fact is that Dounreay in the 60s etc wasn’t perfect, but when it comes to industry in general you only have to read any of the engineering magazines to see what other companies do and discharge to realise the level of attention is totally disproportionate and all because of the word “Nuclear”. Public hysteria is almost amusing when you consider you are far more likely to be killed from driving to work or for those who love a bit of sensationalism - A Chlorine Gas tanker crashing on the motorway or in a city centre killing thousands. Nobody would bat an eyelid, as it wasn’t a truck of “Nuclear Death” or something similarly ridiculous.
So, I harp back to the original point about previous practices – are we going to prosecute the Dounreay management for allowing workers to work without ear defenders or hard hats in the 50s, are we going to prosecute the makers of asbestos materials for not knowing when they made it that it could cause cancer, are we going to prosecute oil companies for not installing blast walls and fire walls on oil platforms before they understood that these could reduce fatalities if there was an oil leak?
Answers on a postcard please and make sure it’s suitably sensational or it won’t make interesting reading!!
philupmaboug
07-Mar-05, 20:51
Great and informative read ajr, with such an abbundance of information at your disposal maybe you could tell us the real reason as to how the sea bed was contaminated ? or what really caused the explosion at the shaft ? or were you a white collar who won't say or a blue collar who can't? or just a grateful pensioner.
Hey, let's get one wee thing straight!!! The controls for the environmental safety of the workers and public were in place, on paper anyway, during my tenure there. The fact that they were completely ignored, and problems were hidden, does not justify making it "old stuff", or "non-relevant today", now does it??
No body is arguing the fact that the sea bed has become contaminated or that Hydrogen gas generated due to the biological decay of the "rubbish" in the shaft caused an explosion. The reasons for both are subject to more documentation than almost anything else at site. We pay millions each year to put divers lives at risk to monitor the sea bed and recover the particles where we find them.
Gluttboy - If the standards were in place on paper why then are most regulations with regards to ionising radiation published after the time in question? Clearly the standards now are a lot better than they were then so please don't make out as if you are a victim of your time at Dounreay. I'm sure you were happy of the work like everyone else has been over the last 50+ years.
No one is saying it isn't relevant - simply "Over the Top" in comparison to other "non nuclear" companies. The press just see it as a good story that the public will be interested in mainly due to a significant (but not all I stress!!!!!!) percentage not having a clue what a seivert or a becquerel is. How can you expect people to make an informed decision when the press see it as an easy target to get some sensational headlines and simple frighten people.
Who's making out they were a victim??? Not me, I baled out of there at the earliest opportunity, and glad I did!! Hey, I was just backing up Herbie, I think he has some cojones to get up and talk,,,good for him!!!!
concerned resident
07-Mar-05, 21:36
Any one who believes that Dounreay is innocent for any of the contamination,
Just because it happen years ago, must either have their hand in the honey jar, or not give a dam for the county of Caithness, and the younger generations, whose future in Caithness will still probably have repercussions, when Dounreay has disappeared from the landscape.
Its a shame more people do not come out and speak the truth, of what went on, then
they would have a better idea of how to clear up the mess. The Gentleman who spoke out has to be admired, and i wish there were more people employed in Dounreay with his courage.
Dounreay is certainly not innocent and that was never suggested I just think people need to get things in perspective. The more people do tell Dounreay "what went on" the easier it will be to take the place apart but it shouldn't be done via the press to make yourself a quick couple of grand. I guess the truth never stands in the way of a good story.
Lets agree to disagree shall we?
webmannie
07-Mar-05, 23:12
Never noticed the 'wee man' owning up to breaking the rules, every backshift/nightshift of his tenure?
Two rolled up towels under his oxter, heading for his daily doss, when he should have been monitoring our working environment. It got so bad we used to phone the locked office next door(the glassblowers) all night just to keep him awake!!!
Unfortunately I can’t access the article; if anyone could post it or provide me with a copy on PM I would be most grateful.
If I can go by what is alluded to in the posts it seems that a former Health Physics Surveyor at Dounreay is spilling the beans on activities that he alleges took place whilst he worked there…like I say I would be interested to see the detail.
Strange that the activity of divers has been highlighted, I can recall discussing the matter of the seabed around the Dounreay outfall with divers who routinely carried out this exercise and they indicated that the area was full of life, with an abundant growth in stark contrast to the adjacent areas.
I also read with interest a letter that Mr. Lyall wrote to the Groat/Courier a few months back relating to the “first” particle found at Sandside, and how all of the HP Surveyors signed the report and had a pact to keep secret who had actually detected it etc……I think his memory is failing him.
;)
Just read Gluttboy's comment:
District Survey", where we checked the beaches, gathered milk samples, whelks, and the like. Let me tell you, the stuff we used to monitor was scary!!!
Any chance you could ellaborate Gluttboy - do you mean you were astounded by the scope and range of samples you used to collect....or there was something untoward with the samples i.e enahnced levels of activity........bearing in mind that records of all these samples exist.
Unfortunately I can’t access the article; if anyone could post it or provide me with a copy on PM I would be most grateful.
Try this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4323265.stm).
The bigger question is why nothing is done about it.
Oh ye of little knowledge!
Depending on the circumstances, it is best to do nothing. Let me clarify.
Regarding a 'spill' of short lived radioactive isotopes, it is often best just to let it decay away and cordon off before cleaning up to avoid exposure to the cleaner.
However, isotopes such as tritium, Cobalt 60 and Caesium 137 has longer half-lives and require a proportioned response approach to the Sandside problem.
Dounreay are doing something there, they are monitoring the foreshore and beaches and cleaning up any particles on a piece meal basis. Quite appropriate action if you ask me. After 5 halflives of decay there will be approximatly 3% of the original activity left, which is nothing. So they are left with a legacy of monitoring for the next 5 halflives of Cs137, 150 years, so what?
The alternative would be to dredge the whole of the foreshore and Sandside beach (with no Guarantee of success i might add) and store the sediments on shore where they will still have to be checked and monitored.
In conclusion, yes, Dounreay did not enforce a good safety culture in the past but they do now. And they are acting proportionately to any hazard.
We all know Dounreay hasnt been totally kosher over the years....
But think about the economic benefits Dounreay has provided our county with. Where would we be without it?
But think about the economic benefits Dounreay has provided our county with. Where would we be without it?
Well for one, the Stromans would still be scratching for a living on their island.
Well done Rheghead for a bit of common sense and keeping things in perspective!
peter macdonald
09-Mar-05, 16:09
Just like to point out that in the 50s and 60s a lot of people made a very good living catching lemon sole plaice etc in the area around Sandside Bay during the winter and spring of the year .Suddenly the fish took off and there were no more to be caught .Overfishing ?? I doubt it as there were still good fishing all the way along the coast west of melvich at that time
Polution ??? make your own minds up
So it is a possibility Dounreay had some negative economic effects as welll
Ps Rheghead There were a sizeable % of Stroma people who made a good living in Sandside Bay MFVs Pavonia,Annabel and Maureen had Stroma skippers and their decendants as crews
Ps Rheghead There were a sizeable % of Stroma people who made a good living in Sandside Bay MFVs Pavonia,Annabel and Maureen had Stroma skippers and their decendants as crews
It was such a good living that they felt the need to flit to the mainland...
According to my Ionising Radiation Protection hand book, some Caesium-137can be from the testing of nukes, and can also travel globally.
Arhh yes, but can it travel globally in the form of particles and 'stone-like objects'? :roll:
peter macdonald
09-Mar-05, 17:07
Rheghead If you read the post... I said these fishermen were making a living as late as the
end of the 60s fishing around Sandside Bay
Stroma s population had left long before around 1955 ... The point is that one of these fishermens main sources of winter income came to an abrupt end .
According to my Ionising Radiation Protection hand book, some Caesium-137can be from the testing of nukes, and can also travel globally.
Arhh yes, but can it travel globally in the form of particles and 'stone-like objects'? :roll:
If it isn't travelling in the form of particles, what form do you suppose it is travelling in?
:confused
Stroma s population had left long before around 1955 ... The point is that one of these fishermens main sources of winter income came to an abrupt end .[/quote]
Wrong. There were still about six families on Stroma in 1956. The last family left way after that.
According to my Ionising Radiation Protection hand book, some Caesium-137can be from the testing of nukes, and can also travel globally.
Arhh yes, but can it travel globally in the form of particles and 'stone-like objects'? :roll:
If it isn't travelling in the form of particles, what form do you suppose it is travelling in?
:confused
Caesium dissolves extremely readily in contact with water, it travels in the clouds in a dissolved form as the Chernobyl disaster proved, if it hadn't of rained on the night that the cloud blew over, we wouldn't have any problem on upland areas.
I probably shouldn't question the wise words of a chemist, but I would like to understand this...
Does (pure) Caesium really dissolve extremely readily in water, or are you referring to caesium salts? I might guess that the caesium would have to become caesium hydroxide first? Or does that happen when it comes into contact with water?
Sorry for the dumb questions; I am sure you will tell me extremely readily if I am talking nonsense. :D
You can probably tell I haven't done any 'wet' chemistry since high school. :confused
You are not talking dumb questions at all, in fact you are right, caesium reacts with water to form caesium hydroxide in solution. The particles that are found on Sandside beach are probably an insoluble compound/alloy of/containing Caesium. Also I think that any Cs137 that is emitted through nuke testing will be atomised thus will not accrete into larger particles moreover they just form part of the natural background for gamma ray spectroscopists.
If you read the investigation report into the criticality accident in Japan (Tokaimura) they found Cs in the soil that couldn't have come from the accident but was attributed to Nuclear Bomb Tests years earlier. It dissolved in water and when it rains is absorbed by the soil where it remains until it decays over a long period. The "particles" on sandside according to the UKAEA web site where there is loads of info is all fragments from fuel and fuel cladding and are metallic in nature. The "thing" found on dunnet is a stone like object with low levels of Cs contamination on the surface. Still it is higher than the typical background level of contamination that will be in almost all soil as a result of bomb testing fall out (oh and Chernobyl of course!!). From what I can make out in the press and UKAEA's press releases the "thing" on Dunnet is far far less radioactive than the particles on Sandside etc but still who knows what it is. I'm sure people more intelligent than me will soon let us know.
Highland Laddie
10-Mar-05, 21:35
We all know Dounreay hasnt been totally kosher over the years....
But think about the economic benefits Dounreay has provided our county with. Where would we be without it?
A lot worse off
Fish is in plentiful supply elsewhere around the North Sea is it?Maybe overfishing caused the depletion of fish stocks in the area.
It should be fairly easy to ascertain if the Cs found at Dunent is associated with the same material found at Sandside and the Doureay foreshore by comparing the Cs137:Cs134 ratio.
Mr Geoffrey Minter Esq. has resided at Sandside house Reay for around 15 years. He was first blasted in the local press, not long after arriving here by a well known councillor in Thurso called Morton Smith who told him to keep his nose out of the affairs of the people of Caithness. Mr Minter had wrongly supposed that his opinions would make a difference when there was a dispute in the planning regulations for a house to be built in Reay.
He has over the years found himself in a few tight spots in the local press, on one occasion reportably bursting into tears when he realised his ambitions to become the Lord Leiutenant of the county were going to be ruined because of his unfair sacking of an employee. Poor mannie! :(
Mind you he doesnt appear to be poor. :eek: He owns a lovely estate in Caithness and one of the finest beaches anywhere in the world. This is Sandside Beach.
I really cant help reading between the lines when I accuse Mr Minter of opportunism at the expense of the people of Caithness when he continues to stir up the obvious problems Dounreay created in the past which has now become a legacy for all of us. Not just Mr Minters veiled hope for a large slice of public money in compensation for the discharges found on his (our) beach.
I see in the Groat today some person from Reay calling for Mr Minter to be paid compensation for his troubles. What troubles I ask? :confused
I suggest he is the one who is creating troubles for Caithness for his own benefit, with his prejudiced and ££££££££ attitudes towards a problem we are being told by SEPA (Scottish Enviromental Protection Agency) is within all required safety levels.
That does not mean I am not concerned about these discharges it means I take a diiferent attitude than Mr Minter towards the problem.
Dounreay has only added to the counties attractions over the years. Dont allow this opportunist landowner, his Tory party cronies, and his pet ex Dounreay employee whistleblower to hijack peoples perception of Caithness.
It should be fairly easy to ascertain if the Cs found at Dunent is associated with the same material found at Sandside and the Doureay foreshore by comparing the Cs137:Cs134 ratio.
I like your theory, you are right in part, if the Dunnet object was deposited within 10 years of the formation of the activity (in a reactor) then yes, it will be quite easy to determine whether the Dunnet object and the Sandside particles are related or not. But after more than 5 half lives of Cs134 (10 years) the activity will be so low as to be almost unquantifiable, making it difficult to make any correlation because the Cs 134 will have decayed away likewise in the Sandside particles.
In the Times article Mr Lyall stated that he witnessed 40 litres of highly radioactive glycol oil being poured down the low active drain. That drain as i understand it was connected to the sea discharge tanks which were over 300 metres cube capacity. Now some of you out there are better at maths than me but i think there is 1,000 litres in a cubic metre so there should be over 300,000 litres in the discharge tank 40 litres out of 300,000 is a pretty good dilution factor to me but maybe someone can give us an idea of how dirty the 40 litres would have to be to make the 300,000 litres exceed the discharge limits.
Any takers for that sum??
Rheghead, as far as I am aware the vast majority of the metallic particles are MTR fuel all of the same age, hence it can quite easily be dertermined if it is from the same source.
I cannot see how you can tell the source of a particle from the Cs137:Cs134 ratio if the Cs134 has decayed away. The particles at Sandside were created in the 70s or even before then, that is at least 12 half lives of Cs 134 ago. They must be able to date the particles by another means.
Believe me it can be done ;)
gleeber has hit the nail on the head. He bought that estate knowing about the issue with the particles being found on the beach and has an interest in getting whatever public money he can.
The post on the home page with the letter from Mark Liddiard of UKAEA shown that mr Lyall is clearly selective about what he remembers. I wonder how much Mr Minter and his press people have to do with this. I also look forward to Iain Duncan Smith flying up to Caithness to take part in the public consultation exercise about what to do with the particle issue.
Should we dredge the whole seabed or build a barrier out at sea to "protect" sandside beach? Answers on a postcard please?
Dredging the sea bed would clearly exacerbate the problem? Surely they should let the hotspots decay away without them being disturbed.
Caledonia
13-Mar-05, 13:26
From what I remember…
Dounreay harped on for all the years about having an exemplary safety record, receiving awards and promoting this aspect of the site.
The people making or authorising these statements were aware at least of ‘issues’, yet the public were continually reassured everything was completely safe.
(Which is bizarre in itself as safe levels of exposure were reassessed over the years, down to many times smaller than originally put forward, yet they still insisted they knew best.)
Anyone in the local community who criticized Dounreay was subject to ridicule and accused of being against the best interests of the community.
From people I have spoken to who were at the front end…
Way back in the eighties I was told about leaks that were ‘covered up’, most notably from an older member of the site staff who was frozen with fear about the implications of sharing what he knew, lest he be prosecuted.
I was told about instances of missing fuel, and how it was explained away as a ‘paper’ error.
From two directors (ex) of the site, speaking socially and well oiled, I was told they (the UKAEA) had made mistakes, and did not ‘know exactly what they were doing’, and that as things currently stood (1991) nuclear power was not necessarily viable economically nor in safety terms.
I note neither involved themselves in the recent campaign to restart the nuclear energy programme.
Observations…
It is very easy to dismiss what an ex employee of Dounreay might have to say about the plant, and with all the people who break the Official Secrets act today with impunity it is very easy to dismiss the fear induced in a worker in the 60/70/80s by the idea that they might be jailed for discussing their work with their family, let alone the press.
Dounreay’s security vetting and clearance procedure routinely involved letting staff know that they were being monitored very closely.
The problem with Dounreay, and the nuclear industry as a whole, has been the lack of truly independent monitoring.
Historically, safety organisations were largely funded by the nuclear industry itself. Safety audits and commissioned reports were funded towards providing specific evidence, often to rebuke contrary reports put forward by the environmental lobby.
It is all very well to write what happened yesterday off as the past, and assert that things are much better now.
How do we really know that?
Are the NSD really doing the job of ensuring compliance?
When an object found on Dunnet beach is ‘taken to Dounreay for further investigation’, should that not raise any eyebrows?
Why does the NSD not take control of all such situations?
Why is monitoring not carried out by the NSD directly?
They could have independent facilities that could accurately analyse the particles and objects found.
Of course it is ridiculous to expect complete transparency from an organisation dealing with very sensitive information, but surely we should have a completely independent inspectorate with complete access that could ensure the safety of our nuclear sites, and encourage best practise.
This would seem to be a sensible balance to increasingly fragmented, multi- agency make up of those running the sites.
Perhaps then we could talk about using Nuclear power in the future.
Maybe we can, safely, limit the damage to our environment from other fossil based fuels and the terrible carnage being wrought over our countryside by the wind factories.
I say factories because the use of farm in this context implies something that is of the countryside, where in reality these machines are extending a crude industrial landscape into our most beautiful, peaceful and remote locations.
As far as the argument for what Caithness would have done without Dounreay will be best answered when decommissioning is complete and we can assess the real long term impact.
But you may as well ask what we would have done without the herring.
The population of Thurso was tiny compared to what it is now.
My feeling is that it would have remained a small town, and as such Norfrost would probably be the main employer.
That doesn’t bear thinking about.
Yes, Dounreay brought ‘wealth’, but it may also have prevented the area diversifying into other industries, or becoming more popular as a tourist destination.
Who knows?
The Caithness people as a whole welcomed the experimental nuclear power station when it was announced it was going to be built at Dounreay in the early 1950s.
No doubt they were fed a lot of spin by the experts of the time who obviously supported the location for collateral damage limitations if anything went wrong. Balance this with the then Lord Thursos support to detonate an atom bomb for test purposes off the coast of Wick and you get an idea of the political correctness inherent in society at that time. :D
Not the best of reasons for building it there but the reality is it was built there and now we are left with a legacy.
The ridicule caledonia speaks about when anyone condemned Dounreay in the past was in actual fact a 2 way thing. It still is. The extremists have hijacked the ship.
I firmly believe Dounreay and its management are being as transparent as possible in the present time. To blindly support Dounreay is as dangerous as blindly condemning it.
Anything other than accepting the situation as it is is nothing but pure fantasy.
Its ridiculous to consider Caithness without Dounreay just as much as its ridiculous to consider the message boards on Caithnes.org without Rheghead. Mind you both will survive without the other.
I note Caledonias experience of Dounreay is based on older employees frozen with fear and breaking the official secrets act or well oiled ex directors with perhaps an axe to grind talking subjectively to someone who wants to believe what he is hearing.
Do you have an anti nuclear agenda Caledonia?
Perhaps someone could clarify just how "active" these particles are.
What makes me wonder is that a few years ago, I was telling someone who works at dounreay that I was off for a chest x-ray that day only to be told that I would be getting a dose of radiation 12 times greater than the maximum dose allowed for a person working at dounreay (or in a certain area of the site) in one year. I do understand that its different radiation.
I did do a little physics in school so realise that some of the levels that are being discussed are pretty small, but could someone give a few simple comparisons so that we can understand a little more the "danger" thats being talked about?
Its not different radiation, exposure to all ionizing radiation whether it be man made or natural is the same. Medical exposures can deliver significant doses of radiation to patients.....but the patients get the benefits of treatment, whcin outweight the detriment of the radiation exposure.
Caledonia wrote
It is very easy to dismiss what an ex employee of Dounreay might have to say about the plant, and with all the people who break the Official Secrets act today with impunity it is very easy to dismiss the fear induced in a worker in the 60/70/80s by the idea that they might be jailed for discussing their work with their family, let alone the press.
You are correct it is, when you have worked with them. It should also be pointed out that ALL initial surveys of the Sandside foreshore were carried out by Helath Physics Surveyors AND a Health Physics Supervisor.......apart it seems from Herbie's clandestine operation :roll:
Caledonia
14-Mar-05, 14:21
Do you have an anti nuclear agenda Caledonia?
A perfect illustration of how any criticism of Dounreay, inferred, qualified or otherwise has been approached historically.
Perhaps then we could talk about using Nuclear power in the future. Maybe we can, safely, limit the damage to our environment from other fossil based fuels and the terrible carnage being wrought over our countryside by the wind factories.
That does not sound like a blinkered anti-nuclear stance to me.
However, you might gather I am not a great fan of the way Dounreay has operated in the past, nor the idea of nuclear installations being run by the private sector.
I have the same views on railways and air traffic control; anywhere where safety could be compromised by the inevitable pressure for maximum profit.
Personally, I can’t see why nuclear power should be ruled out from our future energy plans.
With the expertise already in place at Dounreay, why should it not play a central role in this future?
I note Caledonias experience of Dounreay is based on older employees frozen with fear and breaking the official secrets act or well oiled ex directors with perhaps an axe to grind talking subjectively to someone who wants to believe what he is hearing.
You note wrongly.
My entire family and most of my friends have worked, or do work at Dounreay.
I mentioned an older employee in relation to an event at Dounreay, (involving a shaft…), nothing to do with particles on beaches, and merely to illustrate a point about the Official Secrets Act that might escape people who might think it never had any teeth.
Two ex directors of the plant may indeed both be given to subjectivity, but I would also accept that they have a better overview of the issues involved than I do, and a reasonable chance of making accurate assessments, well oiled or not, and I know them in both contexts.
Axe to grind They both retired with excellent records and no flak from the public or subsequent management.
Besides, is it not usually the dilemma of any critic of Dounreay that they are immediately written off as knowing nothing about the place, or how it operates?
Seems it would be impossible to find someone truly ‘objective’ who would not be written off in this way.
As far as my role being one of someone who wants to believe what he is hearing, that is an assumption that you are free to make about me.
Suffice to say that what I was being told ties in with what is generally considered to be the case regarding the nuclear industry circa. 1960-1990.
If it was not, why are we now talking about the mess that was left?
I firmly believe Dounreay and its management are being as transparent as possible in the present time. To blindly support Dounreay is as dangerous as blindly condemning it.
Subjectivity or objectivity?
We shall only know in time whether the current regime at the plant is truly transparent.
Meanwhile I write off your assertion they are in any of the following ways:
1) The objective views of an outsider who therefore knows nothing
2) The rose tinted views of a Dounreay employee, and therefore too subjective to hold water
3) The personal opinion of an individual with a pro-nuclear agenda, and therefore too subjective to hold water
Incidentally, how
dangerous can it really be to
blindlycondemn something you are not a part of?
Our society as a whole is moving towards the view that secrecy is bad in general, whether you or I like that idea it is the current thinking.
Do you think the legislation brought in to outlaw Freemasonry in the police was brought in by Freemasons?
;)
If anythings become obvious from this thread its the fact that Dounreay would not have gained the reputation as a pollutor if it hadnt been for the likes of the ex-employees/managers mentioned here. That they were culpable is beyond doubt. They all took the money and run though, and now in their lighter moments condemn the legacy they themselves created.
These guys are the source of the mistrust Caledonia speaks about in his posting. Not the present management. How about supporting Dounreay first and condemning it second.
It would be more transparent if these unoiled managers and unfrightened ex workers were to put their hands up and accept their part in the problems now unravelling at Dounreay instead of sniggering at the rest of us behind golden handshakes that would choke a coo. [mad]
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.