Climate Change

Climate Change - An opinion by Grant Sabin

Have your say – Click above to leave a comment

I assume that for most of us today the term ‘Climate Change’ refers to anthropogenic forced climate changes and not the overly complex and varied natural changes that have taken place over millions of years.  What do we mean by climate? 

The World Meteorological Organization uses as a benchmark to compare the climate of different places and different times as the average measurements of temperature, pressure, rainfall, etc., for a period of 30 years. Each 30-year period can be different.  As you know, we have dry, wet, cold and hot periods.

When studying meteorology in the early 60’s I learnt about the greenhouse impact of carbon dioxide. In those days we were told a large proportion of the human input of CO2 into the atmosphere was being absorbed by the oceans. A process that decreases the PH of the oceans.  Hence the oceans have become more acidic and somewhat saturated.  As a result of human activities, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by over 30% in the last 60 years.

Along with thousands of scientists I’m convinced we humans are causing very dangerous changes to the planet’s climate.  It’s not just CO2, there’s methane, CFCs and the ozone layer (hopefully not so bad now).  The atmosphere does not behave in a linear manner; hence I’m convinced we can expect more extreme weather events and major global climatic changes.


Nuclear Power

An opinion piece for comment

Posted by Duncan Gibson August 2020

Following the August presentation to Probus on nuclear power generation I am left with the feeling that we have been conned once again by sanitised technological marvels rather than comprehensive facts. 

Nuclear power is undoubtedly a wonderful thing and significant advances have been made in the engineering of the ‘hardware’ associated with reactors. 

Nothing was revealed to us about the ‘software’ or in other words the human culture and talent required to manage nuclear installations safely in the long term. The human factor has commonly failed, whether in terms of the planning, siting, operation, maintenance, testing, or recycling of nuclear material, not to mention the cover-ups by politicians. 

No mention of the impacts of nuclear installations on the lives of ordinary people, both before and after an accident. The only time the dirty words Chernobyl or Fukushima were mentioned, was following my question near the end of the presentation. And the answer was not actually quite frank. Certainly, no nuclear fuel has exploded in any power plant accident so far as I know but nevertheless the roofs blew off the reactors, the bad stuff escaped, and the consequences were massive by any measure.

The Other Facts About Nuclear Power=

  • I am not opposed to nuclear power generation as such, in fact I believe we will end up with it one day. I only wish that the full story is told in any public discussion. The following is generally not contested.
  • In terms of individual energy-related accidents, Nuclear Power generation ranks first in aggregate cost, and accounts for about 40% of all recorded energy-related accidents including the most expensive to date – the reactor meltdown event at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • A MIT research team has estimated a serious nuclear accident can be expected to happen (worldwide) on average every eight years. They expect 4 more serious accidents to occur before 2055. While some future accidents may be of military origin the sheer number of civilian reactors suggests they will be heavily represented in future accident experience.
  • Chernobyl (1986) contaminated 125,000 square miles of country and fall-out was spread by the wind as far as Scandinavia. A fresh water lake 250 kms. from the incident was sampled – owing to natural water inflows the lake and its fish were reported to be 60 times more toxic than the EEU Standard allowed for human consumption. Maybe humans did not want to eat this fish anyway, but what about the rest of the ecosystem?
  • A Soviet bloc city (Pripyat, Ukraine) was abandoned (1986). Estimated 300,000 citizens were forcibly resettled and numerous small population sites were erased from official maps. Something similar at Fukushima, Japan. Human misery on an epic scale.
  • Nuclear power protagonists claim ‘only’ 31 fatalities arose directly from the Chernobyl disaster. WHO estimated potentially 1,000,000 excess deaths and morbidity over time from radiation-induced disease? Who to believe?
  • In accounting for the cost of nuclear power generation we are told a modern plant can repay the capital within a year. No mention of the investment in mining, refining and transportation of the fuel, spent fuel reprocessing, waste management and remediation of excavations and tailings dams etc.
  • Let us have some rigour in the debate before we vote!
What do other Members think? Your comments are appreciated.