Street furniture, footpath furniture

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:55:22 +0100 someone who may be Derek *
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>IME It's just like any big factory/chemical works, such as ICI
>Billingham on Tees.

It is largely a big chemical works and factory. However some of the
materials are highly radioactive.

>Does your kushty, sheltered life have no need of Nylon or Agricultural
>chemicals (which equate to plentiful food for ordinary people)?

The difference some people see between this and other chemical works
is that in the other chemical works the results of a disaster tend
to be shorter in duration (with perhaps a few exceptions).

I was once in the middle of a chemical works in South Wales when the
man showing me round said they were very pleased with this plant, as
the others had blown up. However, the effects of such an explosion
would have been somewhat localised and short lived. Bad for those
involved, but not spreading too far.

There is however one parallel between the nuclear and chemical
industries that not many people know. Both were and are very keen to
disassociate themselves from their involvement in what are now
called weapons of mass destruction. It seems ICI and their
successors are not very proud of their part in this. If one looks at
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-07-18/Writtens-18.html
then one sees that several ICI plants have undergone a name change:

==============================================================

Column 1163

Mr. Arbuthnot: Officials formulating the draft declaration have
visited a number of sites. They include MOS Randle, CDRE Sutton Oak,
CDE Nancecuke, MOS Valley, MOS Rocksavage, MOS Hillhouse, MOS
Springfields, Barnham Heath, Norton Disney, Lord's Bridge and West
Cottingwith.

==============================================================

ICI Randle was purpose designed to produce chemical weapons. In an
uncanny parallel with Windscale/Sellafield it was then involved in
cleaning up the mess it had helped to create. Interestingly search
engines return very little when "ICI Randle" is put into them. One
has to do a lot of patient research to build up a picture. Indeed,
the only slightly positive comment I have seen on these activities
was about ICI Rocksavage and this amounts to, "we were only obeying
orders."

I doubt if the gates at these places had a crown and MOS (Ministry
of Supply), I suspect they had the familiar ICI logo.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On 10 Apr 2005 20:25:46 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Actually, I'm not sure I believe that. My guess would be they've
>taken a narrow definition of manufacture, and neglected transport
>erection and maintenance.

I take it you also believe they have taken a different view of coal
and nuclear generation.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On 10 Apr 2005 12:46:26 -0700 someone who may be "MartinM"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Isn't Windscale the re-processing/chucking it in the Irish Sea bit and
>Calder Hall the magnox reactor?

"Calder Hall" was sold to the public as the first nuclear power
station in the world, but that was a lie. Whether Mrs Battenburg
knew it was a lie at the time is an interesting question. This was
also when the public were told that electricity generated in this
way would be too cheap to meter. "Calder Hall" was just another part
of the sprawling Windscale site, presumably the name was chosen to
try and make out that it was in some way separate.

"Calder Hall" was actually a number of piles to produce plutonium
for nuclear weapons. However, instead of the heat from a pile going
up a chimney it was used to produce electricity. Nearly all of the
electricity was used on-site. No-doubt sending a bit of the
electricity to the public system was seen as good PR.

Chapelcross was similar, though I gather it did send its electricity
to the public system. It still produced tritium after stopping
plutonium production. These "power stations" were always operated by
the nuclear weapon arm of government.

The "civil" Magnox reactors were larger developments of this
programme.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Jon Senior wrote:
> Simon Proven wrote:
>> We're a net importer of food, though. Each hectare switched to
>> miscanthus will need to be replaced from somewhere.
>
> Oil seed rape for example. IIRC this is one of the heavily subsidised
> plants which contributes to an unusable excess product.

Although the excess product is eminently suitable for using as a fuel more
or less as it is. With the solid residue being used as animal feed.

> Replace some with miscanthus growth and (Certainly in East Anglia) you'll
> have
> significant amounts of product. Biorenewables were investigating ways
> of increasing crop yield and seemed to be doing quite well.

I imagine the energy yield of the miscanthus will be higher, except for the
fact that it'll need to be converted into electricity before use.

A

 

[Simon Proven]

Jon Senior wrote:
> Simon Proven wrote:
>
>> Your computer's timezone appears to be configured incorrectly,
>> you are claiming to post messages in the future (looks like
>> it's had its clock set to 1 hour ahead of UTC, and has been
>> told that it's UTC).
>
>
> It is one hour ahead of UTC. British Summer Time.

We both know that, but your headers said different - they were reporting
their date as being +0000 (i.e. claiming to be reporting UTC) but the
time actually reported was BST (UTC +0100). All correctly written mail
or newsreader software will then add in the correction to the local time
zone, in the case of BST adding 1 hour.

> Apologies. It was set to UTC and corrected for BST. It is now set to a
> timezone of London and should report the correct times in headers.

In the words of Doctor Who, Fantastic.

Simon

 

[Jon Senior]

Simon Proven wrote:
> I would take my Birdy so that remains an option, assuming they'll
> allow it on TGV (TGV to Rennes, then local service to St Malo).

If it folds small enough you should have no trouble. Otherwise, you'll
need to book in advance and pay a supplement (10E). The problem for me
was that the booking can only be made in a station.

> The ferry sounds cheaper, but the total journey time is longer.

Time spent travelling was longer, but the overnight ferry means that you
don't lose much time. I would have preferred a night in a chambres
d'hote near Calais, but I didn't think that my (reasonable) French was
up to arguing the toss with a guard. I'm going to try later in the year
if I can.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Simon Proven wrote:
> Your computer's timezone appears to be configured incorrectly,
> you are claiming to post messages in the future (looks like
> it's had its clock set to 1 hour ahead of UTC, and has been
> told that it's UTC).

It is one hour ahead of UTC. British Summer Time. I've just double
checked against the other clocks in my flat (two of which auto-adjust)
and thinking about it, I've been turning up at work on time for the last
week. I haven't adjusted the time (I don't think) to make the change,
but I will double check.

Apologies. It was set to UTC and corrected for BST. It is now set to a
timezone of London and should report the correct times in headers.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

John Wright wrote:
> Well indeed, Gordon Brown makes some interesting noises, but I don't
> see the treasuries purse strings being opened just yet.

Not a good reason to stop asking?

> It would indeed. However IME people who actually invent things - BP
> may hold the patents but some person actually put brain to paper and
> did the inventing - have no great wish for their patents to be put on
> ice while their employer looks the other way.

Indeed. Which leaves a collection of disgruntled employers at BP who's
plans have been shelved because renewable energy is not compatible with
the profit to be had from fossil fuel.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Simon Proven wrote:
> We're a net importer of food, though. Each hectare switched to
> miscanthus will need to be replaced from somewhere.

Oil seed rape for example. IIRC this is one of the heavily subsidised
plants which contributes to an unusable excess product. Replace some
with miscanthus growth and (Certainly in East Anglia) you'll have
significant amounts of product. Biorenewables were investigating ways of
increasing crop yield and seemed to be doing quite well.

Perhaps it could be planted around the bases of the wind farms! ;-)

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Simon Proven wrote:
> We both know that, but your headers said different - they were reporting
> their date as being +0000 (i.e. claiming to be reporting UTC) but the
> time actually reported was BST (UTC +0100). All correctly written mail
> or newsreader software will then add in the correction to the local time
> zone, in the case of BST adding 1 hour.

Mmm. Not quite sure how that happened, but quite irritating
none-the-less. Ah well. Thanks for pointing it out. I had noticed a
discrepancy between some of the posted responses but assumed it was down
to clocks not having been adjusted.

Jon

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
<[email protected]> writes
>"Calder Hall" was actually a number of piles to produce plutonium for
>nuclear weapons. However, instead of the heat from a pile going up a
>chimney it was used to produce electricity
Wrong. For the first years the piles one and two were used solely as a
source of plutonium for bombs, no electricity was produced indeed no
plant for producing it was there.
--
Clive.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 10 Apr, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 20:25:46 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >Actually, I'm not sure I believe that. My guess would be they've
> >taken a narrow definition of manufacture, and neglected transport
> >erection and maintenance.
>
> I take it you also believe they have taken a different view of coal
> and nuclear generation.

Yes, because they are not 'manufactured' as such, but rather
constructed in place. It would be an easy sleight-of-mouth to
perpetrate.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:36:32 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>"Calder Hall" was actually a number of piles to produce plutonium for
>>nuclear weapons. However, instead of the heat from a pile going up a
>>chimney it was used to produce electricity
>
>Wrong.

Incorrect.

>For the first years the piles one and two were used solely as a
>source of plutonium for bombs,

Correct.

>no electricity was produced indeed no
>plant for producing it was there.

Correct.

However, this has nothing to do with what I wrote. The idea of not
chucking the heat from piles up a chimney occurred to a number of
people at roughly the same time. The result was a pile where the
heat was put to secondary uses. These piles were promoted as being
for peaceful use, but that was a lie. "Calder Hall" supplied hot
water and steam to other parts of the plant as well as electricity.
The same is true of a number of Soviet piles, for example those in
Tomsk-7.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
>
>
> I note that you restricted yourself to nuclear power plant
> disasters. I also assume you are speaking of immediate deaths,
> rather than long term deaths. Although the latter are hotly debated
> there are not as low as some claim.
>

Sure they are not as low as some claim, but do those claiming have any
validity to their numbers. The UNSCEAR reports are the most thorough
and independent and found no other deaths or population effects outside
the immediate vicinity of Chernobyl.

> The various disasters at Mayak probably killed thousands, perhaps
> the thousand. We simply don't know as they have hardly been
> acknowledged, doctors were forbidden to keep records and some of the
> victims dispersed to die elsewhere.
>

The fact that the military misused nuclear material is no more an
argument against its peaceful than Zyklon is an argument against having
a chemicals industry

YMMV

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

John Wright wrote:
>
> Strangely enough, my wife was brought up in the area of the Columbia
> River and therefore her longevity might be compromised by the USA's
> desire for nuclear weapons.

One of the classic epidemiological studies IIRC. Workers from the
Hanford Plant were found to have a much higher cancer death rate than
the general population. It was only when they looked in more detail did
they find they also lived much longer than the general population, and
the older you get the more likely it is that you will die of cancer,
which more than explained the excess cancer rate.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> The difference some people see between this and other chemical works
> is that in the other chemical works the results of a disaster tend to
> be shorter in duration (with perhaps a few exceptions).
>

I believe that people in Bhopal, Seveso and elsewhere are still
suffering the effects of those chemical disasters after all these years.
There are still many places you cannot go because of chemical land
contamination and even more biological contamination with e.g. anthrax.

Tony

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> writes
>David Hansen wrote:
>> The difference some people see between this and other chemical works
>>is that in the other chemical works the results of a disaster tend to
>> be shorter in duration (with perhaps a few exceptions).
>>
>
>I believe that people in Bhopal, Seveso and elsewhere are still
>suffering the effects of those chemical disasters after all these
>years. There are still many places you cannot go because of chemical
>land contamination and even more biological contamination with e.g.
>anthrax.

At least radioisotopes do decay over time. Organic contaminants will
also decay (not radioactively, obviously); dioxin has a half-life of 3-5
days in the atmosphere, but 10-20 years in soil. Stable elements are
subject only to dilution and sequestration.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Walker wrote:
>
> At least radioisotopes do decay over time. Organic contaminants will
> also decay (not radioactively, obviously); dioxin has a half-life of 3-5
> days in the atmosphere, but 10-20 years in soil. Stable elements are
> subject only to dilution and sequestration.
>

Which is why so many people die each year from radioactive radon seeping
into their homes from the ground. Makes the man-made isotopes pall into
insignificance by comparison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4113765.stm

Tony

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:44:12 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Strangely enough, my wife was brought up in the area of the Columbia
>> River and therefore her longevity might be compromised by the USA's
>> desire for nuclear weapons.
>
>One of the classic epidemiological studies IIRC. Workers from the
>Hanford Plant were found to have a much higher cancer death rate than
>the general population. It was only when they looked in more detail did
>they find they also lived much longer than the general population, and
>the older you get the more likely it is that you will die of cancer,
>which more than explained the excess cancer rate.

John did not say whether his wife worked there or not. However,
those that did not work there are involved in legal action over
airborne discharges, which http://www.downwinders.com/index.html
outlines.

http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/default.htm is a good starting
place for the other discharges.

Note that this was and is a civilian site (with the possible
exception o the early years, when it is debatable but probably more
accurate to say it was a military site).


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:53:21 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> The difference some people see between this and other chemical works
>> is that in the other chemical works the results of a disaster tend to
>> be shorter in duration (with perhaps a few exceptions).
>>
>
>I believe that people in Bhopal, Seveso and elsewhere are still
>suffering the effects of those chemical disasters after all these years.

Seveso, relatively little, though that does not underestimate the
difficulties faced by those that are affected. Bhopal rather more,
largely due to poverty. One could say that poverty has a part to
play in the various Soviet discharges, the people affected in large
numbers were those officials were not too bothered about.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.