Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Blair's Nuclear Winter

It is interesting that within weeks of terrorist suspects’ arrest in Australia, apparently aiming to blow up a nuclear test centre, Tony Blair believes that more nuclear power is just what the UK needs.

The Prime Minister is said to believe nuclear power can improve the security of the UK's energy supply and also help on climate change. But what security will be provided to ensure we don't have a terrorist attack on such a new plant? Also what does he intend to do about the radioactive waste that will be produced? He is creating another damaging by product to cover for his inadequacies in eight years of moving on alternative, totally clean, sustainable energy sources.


Chris Black said...

You are spot on, and I haven't seen anybody else mention this point recently

Nuclear power stations and terrorism (let alone war) don't mix very well.

Simon said...

Hang on guys - as I understand it the kind of protection needed to stop radiation getting out (metres and metres of reinforced concrete casing) is more than enough to stop any terrorist action resulting in some kind of radiation leakage.

So, nuclear power stations and terrorism probably do mix pretty well - but it seems to me that the case for and against nuclear power stations should be made on an environmental basis, and that alone for one simple reason (notwithstanding the one above): I do not accept that the risk of terrorism has massively increased since the 1970s and 1980s (when we faced the IRA), but even if you do - I do not think that it should be affect our lives, or the way we go about forumlating policy in areas that are essentially unrelated.

So, for example, if I said I didn't want the channel tunnel to be built because of the risk of a terrorist attack causing a fatal flood, or didn't want us to use airplanes for the same reason - you'd rightly tell me that we shouldn't adapt our behaviour in the face of bullies.

No appeasement.

Stephen Glenn said...


As someone who grew up on the other side of the Irish Sea from Sellafield the case for non-leakage is not so easily dismissed. Three-mile Island and Chernobyl both suffered severe issues without the assistance of a concerted terroist plan.

I'm not ruling it either in or out. I'm just thinking that Mr Blair is clearly not thinking too straight if with one hand he says we are facing a war against terror, while on the other hand he is proposing building (i.e. not already structurally sound) new Nuclear power stations.

Lets not forget the 7/7 bombers and 21/7 attmepted bombers would all have been highly likely to have passed clearance to work in the construction of a new nuclear power station.

I still say that nuclear is not an option that is without its own risk, irrelevant of potential terrorist threat. Although I'm glad to see the combination has drawn discussion I aim to provoke thought.


Related Posts with Thumbnails