Without technical knowledge we have no way of knowing how serious any of this is.

My sense is that if this is the worst kind of thing the anti-nukes can come up with, relative to all the other risks we run in our lives
My support for nuclear is intact.

cjcjc: Without technical knowledge we have no way of knowing how serious any of this is.

Article; Despite that use of the word ‘slightly’, the radioactivity released in that single day constituted 130 times the level of radioactivity the Tricastin site is permitted to release in an entire year. It was found that a faulty valve had caused the leak. A leak the previous week had been ignored. Lovely, safe and clean nuclear energy.

In other words… lalalala I can’t heaaaar youuuu!

Ok Sunny, what is the level of radioactivity the Tricastin site is permitted to release over one year?

Areva, the company running the plant, said that although 30,000 litres had been spilled, ‘only’ 18,000 litres had reached the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. That’s a strange use of the word ‘only’, isn’t it?

No.

France’s nuclear watchdog, ASN, issued the reassurance that, while the leak was toxic, it was only ‘slightly’ radioactive. A funny kind of reassurance, when you think about it….

Not at all – the general public isn’t particularly good at evaluating risk, particularly with regard to radioactivity, which they tend to fear, so it seems like a worthwhile assurance to me.

Don’t drink the water, it’s toxic, but don’t worry about getting cancer from simply being near it, is what they seem to be implying.

Despite that use of the word ‘slightly’, the radioactivity released in that single day constituted 130 times the level of radioactivity the Tricastin site is permitted to release in an entire year.

Well, that doesn’t tell us much about whether the risk to the public was significantly increased, does it?

Lovely, safe and clean nuclear energy.

Well, it’s all relative, isn’t it?

Again the workers were described by a spokesperson for Electricite de France (EDF) as ‘slightly’ contaminated as if that detracted at all from the fact that they shouldn’t have been contaminated at all. Like pregnancy, if you don’t want to be contaminated, you really should take the proper precautions.

Well again that’s about reassurance, and again you haven’t said whether the risk to their lives or the rest of the public has been significantly increased.

‘Areva, the company running the plant, said that although 30,000 litres had been spilled, ‘only’ 18,000 litres had reached the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. That’s a strange use of the word ‘only’, isn’t it?

No.’

Actually, it IS a strange use of the word ‘only’. I would go so far as to say it is in fact an INAPPROPRIATE usage of the word, considering that of 30, 000 litres, 18, 000 constitutes 60%. In short, they are saying, ‘oh, don’t worry – only more than half the amount spilled is in the rivers.’

‘Well, that doesn’t tell us much about whether the risk to the public was significantly increased, does it?’

Fair question – but surely the limit is there for a reason – to ensure the level of radioactivity emitted goes up to just what is acceptable. Surely if that limit is exceeded 130 times over, then the risk to the public IS going to increase significantly. However, like I said, you do have a fair question in asking just how much more endangered the public really was.

‘Well again that’s about reassurance, and again you haven’t said whether the risk to their lives or the rest of the public has been significantly increased.’

So if the risk was only ‘increased’, that would make it OK?

(Let’s hope the response doesn’t include: ‘Well, it’s all relative, isn’t it?’).

Scepticism is one thing, but I can’t help feeling that such nit-picking (and failing to directly challenge the very fair final assertion of the article) not only misses the bigger picture, but could also mean that proper scrutiny of those responsible for these errors doesn’t happen as it should, or is hampered.

Er, by the ‘very fair final assertion of the article,’ I meant this:

‘Like pregnancy, if you don’t want to be contaminated, you really should take the proper precautions’,

just to clarify. Not the bit about Britney, the idea of comparing her meltdown to that of a French nuclear power company sounds more like something Gawker would want to do than me.

Look,

Can anyone get any facts about this radiation leak?

It seems to range between trivial, and fatal to the whole human race. The only thing I could find is that the French equivalent of DEFRA seems to be saying it is not that dangerous. Which is a bit contrary to the game Justin is playing.

I appreciate that Justin has an agenda of his own, fear of the atomic age perhaps, but it is not reasonable to frighten folk without attaching risk to numbers. It is, apparently the case that naturally occurring radiation, through Radon, causes circa 2.500 deaths a year in the UK. That, sirs, is the background level.

So. what, exactly, is the increased risk?

I have tried to Google an answer, and frankly I am no further forward.

Until Justin provides substantial links, measured in, say, Becquerels, we won’t know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel

and we will never get to the bottom of the risk. Nor be able to assess whether Justin and Co are right on environmentalists or just another branch of the scare industry.

I suspect the latter, but that’s just me.

Oh Douglas

Didn’t you see Sunny’s detailed response?

You’re just not listening!

Dear God. The only spinning here is in this article; I won’t bore you with something so silly as the actual science, but there’s more bullshit here than a David Miliband Guardian article. This is what happens when non-scientists try to write about a science of which they plainly haven’t a clue. It’s reactionary and alarmist.

Sunny, saying something is 130 times the legal level still gives no indication whatsoever of the absolute danger involved or lack of it, and all the “La la la-ing” in the world won’t change that.

We can tell by the rhetoric which side of the debate Justin is on, it’s just a pity it’s not on the side of a critical analysis of the Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Nuclear medicine and environmental impact science that would be needed to assess what has actually occurred and what the real (if any) dangers are.

Ok Sunny, what is the level of radioactivity the Tricastin site is permitted to release over one year?

The absolute amount is irrelevant isn’t it? It would be set by the govt and probably be a figure used across various countries. The problem is surely that 130 times the yearly limit was released in one day. Do you see that as some sort of a leftwing conspiracy? Or do you think Justin is lying?

Sunny,

The problem is surely that 130 times the yearly limit was released in one day. Do you see that as some sort of a leftwing conspiracy? Or do you think Justin is lying?

Why are you introducing non sequiturs rather than engaging with the point that this tells us nothing about the additional risk?

The yearly limit could be, say, equivalent to 130 times less than the ICRP’s dose limit for members of the public. If that was the case, there doesn’t seem much to worry about (but there is something to be concerned about).

Amrit,

‘Well again that’s about reassurance, and again you haven’t said whether the risk to their lives or the rest of the public has been significantly increased.’

So if the risk was only ‘increased’, that would make it OK?

(Let’s hope the response doesn’t include: ‘Well, it’s all relative, isn’t it?’).

Damn. Well, if the risk was insignificantly increased, it wouldn’t make the problem OK, but then again we need not worry. If it was significantly increased, the public in the vicinity of Tricastin might like to think about packing their bags.

And this is one point I’m trying to make – apparently not very well – that unfortunately Justin’s article, despite its figures, tells us nothing about the additional risk to the public, and therefore it looks more like a panic piece than a well-reasoned criticism.

My other point is that members of the public are ignorant of risk. We need people to inform us, not to write panic pieces. We need to be able to put risk into perspective (see for example Bernard L Cohen’s Catalog of Risks), particularly at a time when if we (in the UK) do nothing we are going to lose 30% of our electricity production capacity within the next 10-15 years. I don’t believe Justin’s article contributed to our perspective.

Panic over?

The point is that 130x the legal limit is still 1/1000 the amount likely to do anyone any harm, because of the insane gibbering paranoia we have about “OH NOES! TEH LETHAL MUTANT RADIATION LIKE WOT THEY HAD IN HIROSHIMA”.

I don’t know how toxic in chemical-rather-than-radioactive terms the leak at Tricastin was. I do know that on the basis of the radiation alone, I’d happily go for a swim in it and drink it, and anyone who wouldn’t is a gibbering loony.

Very strange, I am agreeing with John again!

Strong high standards are to be commended and perhaps even legal sanctions are appropriate on principle in this fraught area even if the risk of harm is minimal, but it shouldn’t be used as grounds to stir up paranoia about nuclear power. Does anyone know what the actual level of radiation released was and what danger it might have reasonably posed?

Perhaps the author could enlighten us?

Why has my response to Amrit and Sunny disappeared?

Sunny,

The problem is surely that 130 times the yearly limit was released in one day. Do you see that as some sort of a leftwing conspiracy? Or do you think Justin is lying?

Why do you resort to non sequiturs rather than engage with the point?

Justin has not told us what the yearly limit is. Nor has he told us what risk the yearly limit poses and how “130 times the limit” increases the risk. We have nothing to go on, It looks more like a panic piece than well reasoned criticism.

Amrit,

‘Well again that’s about reassurance, and again you haven’t said whether the risk to their lives or the rest of the public has been significantly increased.’

So if the risk was only ‘increased’, that would make it OK?

(Let’s hope the response doesn’t include: ‘Well, it’s all relative, isn’t it?’).

If the risk was insignificantly increased, why would you worry? I think it’s reasonable to have positions in between “OK” and “don’t bother packing, we need to get out of here fast”.

I recall including a little discussion of relative risk particularly in relation to energy production and conservation. I recommend Bernard L Cohen’s Catalog of Risk – you might dispute the figures, but it makes one think.

Oh now it’s back.

(Googles “Tricastin, becquerel”) Most of what you’re asking for seems to be here

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/nucl-a01.shtml

“This information is not enough to assess the gravity of the incident: Socatri gave only the quantity of uranium shed, while the relevant measure is the level of radiation, expressed in Becquerels. This omission was clearly due to the wish to avoid panic: even if only 74 kg of natural, unenriched uranium has been shed the non-governmental organization CRIIRAD (Independent Commission of Research and Information on Radioactivity) estimated that the radioactivity released would have been 1918 megabecquerels in one night—instead of the authorised 71.7 megabecquerels per year.”

Some background on CRIIRAD, and the current problems of Areva here
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL2465085020080724

Meanwhile the Gendarmerie have raided both Areva and the official safety authorities. So it must be under control.

Nuclear energy is evil. It could wipe us all out with a few terror strikes. One accident killed 250,000 in the Ukraine,.

ukliberty,

What I was saying was less about harm to people and more about those in charge… probably should’ve explained that better, sorry.

What I meant to say was that even if the risk is not significantly increased, those responsible should not be allowed to sit back and go, ‘Oh, it’s OK after all, everyone’s fine! It’s not that much of a disaster. We’ll just keep going, then.’ Hopefully, because there have been several mess-ups, that won’t happen…

Must stop posting late at night! >_<

Amrit has it right. These places aren’t supposed to have any accidents, because almost nothing can go as badly wrong as a nuclear power station. Now there’s a succession of faults and staff complaining about a safety last culture.

Clearly the solution is to ask them to build more plants in new places, and not just places like the UK and France where safety standards, training and so on can be expected to be sufficiently good that things like this at least get (under)reported, but places like China, Russia, Bulgaria, and so on where they can be expected to be handled somewhat differently

The thing I find odd is that so many people know their utility company makes mistakes when it comes to processing their bill, but is prepared to believe they run a flawless operation when it comes to handling radioactive material.

Another thing – when assessing nuclear we have to compare it to alternative sources of energy.

I.e, how many people a year are dying because of climate change related environmental disasters. How much damage is done by oil spills; What about people trapped in coal mines or killed on oil rigs.

It may be that climate change isn’t causing any deaths right now, but if the science is right, the chances are that it will be in the future.

On top of that, there is also the geo-political element of countries the Saudi Arabian and Iranian governments being largely propped up by oil money.

That is the context in which nuclear power is seen as a viable option. Does anyone know how many deaths a year have been caused as a result of french nuclear plants? Everyone knows about chernobyll, but the soviets completely wrecked the environment and chernobyll was just the tip of the iceberg.

Finally the power plant in question was builty in 1974. Newer power plants built with the latest technology and safety measures will probably be much safer.

The biggest issues with nuclear power are almost definitely security and the disposal of waste. Greenpeace is doing itself an injustice by taking such an ideological position on the issue.

“One accident killed 250,000 in the Ukraine”

Err, if you’re using a base of numbers where “250,000″ (your base) = “56″ (base 10), then you might be right. Seriously… Chernobyl is about the worst possible case situation for nuclear power, with a badly-designed and badly-maintained plant generally, *and* suicidally insane operators. Whilst it scared the bejesus out of everyone, the total death toll is 56. Now compare with Bhopal, or London smog come to that…

“so many people know their utility company makes mistakes when it comes to processing their bill, but is prepared to believe they run a flawless operation when it comes to handling radioactive material”

Similarly, the rail network makes plenty of mistakes at selling tickets, but is extremely safe when it comes to not crashing trains. This is because making mistakes at billing/ticketing doesn’t matter very much, so the same risk mitigation systems aren’t in place.