Re: Maxwell Ash's letter in September 8's Cheddar Valley Gazette,in response to mine.
I am glad that Maxwell is 100 per cent in favour of windturbines. It is then such a shame that he resorts to ridicule tomake other points.
He says my comments about plutonium are not fit for publicationand then confuses the natural levels of plutonium in us (and in ourenvironment) with that created by nuclear fission.
There are two, or several, different types of plutonium, eachhaving differing effects. (A useful little parallel - synthesised'aspirin' can cause stomach ulcers.
His assumption that 'possible' meltdown of power stations inJapan could not have any effect on water supplies because they areon the coast, and therefore couldn't contaminate rivers andreservoirs, has missed the point. Meltdowns as the word impliesmeans a downward passage, reaching subterranean watercourses, whichare interconnecting over many parts of the planet.
Maxwell then comments about the safety of nuclear. Well we haveseen the results of Chernobyl and Fukushima and the wastelands suchevents create, along with the high risk of cancer, and that theradiation travels over thousands of miles. This along with thestorage legacy for the future.
Maxwell's last point is that wind and solar power will not beenough in the short term, and so we need nuclear. This is odd as wecannot have the nuclear power stations functioning in the shortterm, but we can with solar and wind, if folk would stop resisting.So his thoughts are somewhat topsy-turvy.
Melvyn Firmager Stoughton Cross Wedmore
No comments:
Post a Comment