|
I agree with much that has been said about the possible
underlying reasons for the airing of the programme at this
time.
I have taken the opportunity to read the transcript of the
programme identified (most helpfully) by others on the radsafe
net.
I would if I were living in the US contact the programme
makers and ask the following:
1. What new information was contained in
this particular programme?
2. Why did the programme makers feel
that this subject should be revisited at this time?
3. Do they really feel that this
programme is an accurate comment on the nuclear power industry that now exists
in the US?
My personal view is that if NBC wished to revisit TMI the best
thing that they could do is to produce a programme detailing the impact that TMI
has had in the intervening period. As has already been identified by
others, the lessons learned from TMI had far reaching consequences.
Although there are some who feel that some of the post TMI regulations went
to far and placed to great a burden on the nuclear industry. What has
been demonstrated is the well run power plants can work within
these regulations and can operate safely and economically. I would
like to see a programme that reviewed the lessons that have been learnt,
how these have been applied and how the potential for this type of accident
has been much reduced as a consequence. I know that as I wondered around
the containment building of Sizewell B during the later stages of
construction you could find valves and other equipment associated with the
pressuriser that had TMI in their plant references. These items were
included in the design as a direct result of the accident at TMI. Included
in the sampling equipment for the reactor coolant was a post accident sampling
system, another direct result of TMI. In much of the emergency training
that I have recieved during my carreer there have been many references to the
basis for the UK approach for nuclear incidents, again this approach stems
directly from many of the lessons learned from TMI. Just a few personal
examples of how I have encountered the lessons learned from TMI.
While I agree with Sandy that we should examine history, I
don't believe that this was the intent of the progranmme makers.
While the facts were there, they were selective (emphasising the negative) and
they were presented in a sensationalist fashion. The real purpose behind
revisiting history is to learn from it. Unfortunately I don't feel there
was anything to learn from the transcript of this programme (with the possible
exception of why remake something that was done previously e.g. at the time of
the 20th anniversary).
Having said all of the above, I hold little hope that the
media will approach (except on the very rare occasion) the subjects of radiation
and nuclear power in an unbiased, non-sensational and factual manner. It
just doesn't make good copy.
Regards
Julian Ginniver
|