Iain Mann (Letters, August 21) says what has been often said before - that an independent Scotland can make its own decisions about whether we have a new generation of nuclear generation - but the implication frequently is that we can keep free of the perceived dangerous option. That is so but we shall have no say in the nearness of nuclear installations operated by others.
We should always remember that distance is no safeguard against unsafe nuclear reactors - Chernobyl was felt worldwide. We have large installations in our near neighbour, France.
Those who find safety in keeping nuclear energy out of Scotland should start thinking of where an impenetrable barrier can be built, but that would be a waste of scarce energy as well as being impossible.
The better course is to accept that nuclear energy has valuable benefits to people who need energy quickly, and they are not likely to abandon it because of Scottish fears.
The safety record of nuclear energy compares well with other large industries. We had the Wigner energy accident at Windscale in 1957, with no recorded loss of life. The Three-Mile Island loss of cooling water accident in 1979 was also contained. Chernobyl was the only nuclear accident with loss of life. We will continue to have accidents in all major industries.
There have been recent coal mining accidents with considerable loss of life and, within the memory of many people, there is the worst industrial accident in history. In 1984 there was the escape of 45 tons of toxic methyl isocyanate from the Union Carbide insecticide plant in Bhopal, India, when 2500 people were known to have died and a further 50,000 injured.
It would be rash to say that even with the modern improvements in nuclear safeguards no-one else will be killed, but I am sure we have more than compensatory numbers. Developing countries are raising their standards of living and that will bring a reduction in premature mortality. A rapid increase in available energy plays an important part in that.
Chris Parton, 40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article