The Nuclear Option

Today (Monday) should see the application for a new Nuclear Power station at Hinkley point submitted. If approved, Hinkley C will be built on the site where the old Hinkley A Magnox reactor and Hinkley B the Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor, are currently located.

As part of my new "Community Safety" brief at Mendip, I was invited to attend one of the regular Hinkley Site Stakeholder meetings in Bridgwater last week. Although this is the first one that I have attended, they have been held regularly for many years, with representatives from all of the local councils, District Councils and County County present, along with activists from the various "anti-nuclear" groups such as Greenpeace and Stop Hinkley.

The meeting was very informative with much discussion about the excellent safety record of the plant, and what to expect over the coming weeks and months. Perhaps the most interesting contribution related to a review of site safety in the light of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami that devastated large areas of North Eastern Japan including the Fukishima Nuclear power plant.

Although there are similarities between Fukishima and Hinkley, I think the differences are perhaps the most important subject. Firstly Fukishima is a Pressurised Water Reactor, relying on water to cool the reactor core, Hinkley as a Gas cooled reactor uses Nitrogen to cool the reactor. The main cause of the problems in Japan were directly related to the fact that the site was swamped by the Tsunami, coming over a 7 metre high sea wall, killing the pumps that circulated the water by severing the connection with the grid.

Hinkley has 12 metre high sea defences, more than enough for even the most severe Tsunami that could reasonably be expected, it also has its own power station that can run its back up systems if the grid fails, and can produce its own Nitrogen to cool the reactors. EDF are also installing massive gas tanks that can flood the containment building with Nitrogen if all else fails, in other words, they are protected against pretty much any eventuality.

What is also interesting when you look back at the hype surrounding the "disaster" at Fukishima, is that the latest published figures show that there were only 2 fatalities at the power plant, one killed by a falling crane during the earthquake, and one worker who died of a heart attack, 2 other workers are still missing, presumably swept away by the Tsunami. There have been around 30 other minor injuries and exposures to radiation that have required hospital treatment, although none required lengthy stays. Although each death is a tragedy for the family concerned, you would have thought by the media coverage that thousands had been killed by the "meltdown", when in comparison tens of thousands were killed by the Tsunami that got significantly less coverage.

The anti-nuclear brigade often quote the thousands or millions that die every year as a result of radiation exposure, however the latest figures from the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) show that the Chernobyl disaster actually killed 57 people as a direct result of the explosion and fire, and in the 30+ years since, there has been an increase of just about 6000 in extra cases of thyroid cancer in the 5 million people living in the contaminated area around the plant, all other cancer rates are broadly similar to unaffected areas. Thyroid cancer is eminently treatable with a 90+% success rate, meaning that so far there have only been 15 deaths directly attributable to radiation exposure. That gives us a total of 72 deaths in 30 years as a result of the accident, again a tragedy for the relatives of each victim, but compare that if you will with the thousands that die every year in coal mines, or working on gas and oil rigs to provide the alternative sources of energy.

More people are killed in this country every year falling by off a ladder doing DIY, sometimes we need to get a sense of proportion.