Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Up and atom


I was amazed by Antony Oliver's editorial last week and it set me wondering afresh about nuclear power.

The concurrent debate about rail safety and allocation of blame seems to have parallels.

Why, for example, do we accept high levels of risk on the roads and much lower levels on the railways- Similarly, why do we not accept the extremely low risk of a nuclear accident and prefer to live with the very high risks associated with climate change?

We have squandered our precious North Sea gas reserves by burning them inefficiently in power stations instead of efficiently in people's homes.

We cannot expect renewables to provide a reliable alternative energy source soon because of long development times, low output, and opposition to new technology.

Our population is still increasing and unlikely to agree to lowering living standards by substantially lowering power consumption.

I would rather hand on to our descendents a world with a well managed and properly controlled store of nuclear waste than a world that has changed beyond recognition as a result of global warming.

Donald Holliday, 1 Lane Head, Windermere, Cumbria LA23 2DW

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.