Remember last week when we told you nuclear lobbyists in Europe were pushing for the continent's reactors not to be tested for their resistance or otherwise to terrorist attacks? Well, the lobbyists have won.
Agreement on the content of 'stress tests' for Europe's nuclear power stations between the European Commission and European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group will be announced this morning.
European nuclear watchdogs have agreed details of safety checks on the EU's reactors to prevent crises like that in Japan, but they will not include tests for resisting terror attacks, the European Commission said.
Europe's aging nuclear power stations are getting stress tests lite. These safety checks won't be independent, won't cover plans for emergencies and won't always tell us whether some of Europe's most obvious terrorist targets are protected or not. The pro-nuclear governments in the UK, France and the Czech Republic are responsible for watering down the deal.
Feel safer? Reassured? With the nuclear industry facing a massive crisis of plummeting public confidence it really isn't doing the cause of greater openness and transparency any favours.
For background information, click here.
Justin McKeating has been blogging the meltdown of the nuclear industry for Greenpeace International since 2008. He is based in Brighton, UK.
(Unregistered) biologist says:
That is just too bad and whom does it benefit? The power companies should see it as an advantage-giving what enourmous cost they will have if anything DOES happen. They ought to welcome a test. When the Fukushima accident happened I went to look for information about this type of reactor. It said that they were bulit so that the pressure vessel could resist also a full core meltdown, without spreading any radiation. News for Fukushima is telling us this is not true. One or more of the reactors vessels have been perforated by a meltdown, and this was not even a meltdown that was galloping (the process had been shut down immediately when the earth-quake happened). What I mean is-however safe the modern reactors are constructed to be, they all have one flaw-they have never been tested in real circumstances, and CAN never be tested thus. Now the Japaneze people are suffering under a "In real life" cruel experiment. Nuclear power IS safe- until something happens.
Posted 25 May, 2011 at 16:04 Flag abuse Reply
To post a comment you need to be signed in.
(Unregistered) Quickjman says:
despite all of the wonderful, and simi-legitimate arguments articles like this one and others on this site make. you have to realize this, coal, ans o...
despite all of the wonderful, and simi-legitimate arguments articles like this one and others on this site make. you have to realize this, coal, ans oil are NOT by any means safe, or clean, and the the "renewable" (in quotes, because if where talking on the same scale that nuclear isn't renewable then nothing really is, FYI the sun is NUCLEAR!) resources that you guys always seem to point to, simply are NOT at the level of sophistication that we need to provide the word with the standard of living oil has given us. Oil, natural gas, and coal, are all capable of causing Chernobyl level deviation, ever heard of the gulf oil spill/s? that killed massive amounts of wildlife and crippled the fishing market of 2011+, or of a little town called silent hill in west Virgina? that suffered, and contuses to do so todate, from a underground coal fire sparked by, of all things witch trials, which is quite ironic in this context, considering it is basically the same thing that is happening right here on this site, mass hysteria stemming from something with a scary name, that you dont understand. which, as we now know, causes people to wrongfully grab there pitch forks. look, im not saying that nuclear power, is the safest thing since sliced bread, but considering the options that we have to date, it's not a bad choice, the radioactive material that is created is scientifically speaking, SAFER than the uranium ore that was originally taken from the ground. and unlike the components that have yet to be mined, when we safely dispose of the radioactive matter, we know exactly where it's at, and can keep it out of the water supplies as well as other places that it could be come harmful in. i know many of you know what ive mentioned already, and still oppose nuclear power(altho i cant see why..) but i would like to ask you to further examine what you condemn.
Posted 26 May, 2011 at 19:53 Flag abuse Reply
(Unregistered) no says:
That realy sucks the amaricans arent any safer than the europeans
Posted 27 May, 2011 at 12:49 Flag abuse Reply
(Unregistered) john says:
nuclear power is not drity or whats you say is extremely bad it is a green energy russia nuclear disater happened because its reactor was a RBMK react...
nuclear power is not drity or whats you say is extremely bad it is a green energy russia nuclear disater happened because its reactor was a RBMK reactor the worst reactor ever we the USA use PWR and BWR reactors ever one think that nuclear energy is bad but WHAT ABOUT OIL thats bad it hurts the envorment AND yet WE still USE IT but every ones worryed about nuclear power WORRY ABOUT OIL GREENPEACE USE OIL AND THEY DONT CARE YOU ALL ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE ENVORMENT AND YOU STILL USE OIL HERES A START STOP USEING OIL AND STOP PROTESTING ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER I SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER AN IT WILL TAKE US FAR IN TO A BETTER FURTURE
Posted 27 May, 2011 at 20:07 Flag abuse Reply
(Unregistered) jweich says:
I am absolutely stunned by the total and utter ignorance of the posters here. How stupid and uninformed can you be?
Posted 1 June, 2011 at 11:12 Flag abuse Reply
1 - 5 of 5 results.
Are you sure to remove this comment?
Are you sure to report this comment as abuse?