When will they give it a rest?

Bison in the neighbourhood of Chernobyl

Once again certain unpopular politicians are seeking to subvert good science and positive environmental developments, by pushing the nuclear power myth for Scotland.

Entirely subjective, but I cannot recall ever having a conversation with anyone who wanted nuclear power. Instead, all environmentalists of my acquaintance are opposed to this and make good cases for relying on renewables to provide Scotland’s electricity needs.

These reports are fair examples of my argument.
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/publications/power_of_scotland.pdf

http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/labour-goes-nuclear/

I recall the horror of the Chernobyl plant explosion in 1986 which lead to disaster for that area and further afield as prevailing winds blew contaminated dust across so much of Europe. Although I understand that the levels of health and safety as well as good engineering practice were not as high there as those in the UK, I fail to be convinced that humans are infallible and that even the best systems can go wrong.

Leaving aside the dreadful human cost of the tragedy, there is new evidence that the hoped for recovery of plants and animals in the area was an over-estimate. This report today states:

“Researchers also found that animals living near the Chernobyl reactor had more deformities, including discoloration and stunted limbs, than normal.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE52H09020090318?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

I'd far rather live with numerous wind farms and support funding for exciting scientific advances in wave power technology than risk more nuclear accidents. Nothing can persuade me to vote for those who do not care that their proposals bequeath centuries of nuclear waste to future generations.

Immortal light bulb?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coles_Phillips_WWI_poster.jpg

Yesterday, I replaced the looooonglife light bulb which had been providing active service illuminating my sitting room for eleven years or more. I say or more as it came with the house, so it had been there for an unknown amount of time before I moved in.

I counted it ironic that this passing of what had become a permanent fixture happened in the week of the announcements about shops stopping selling incandescent bulbs. The Independent had an amusing article on this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-battle-of-the-bulbs-a-very-british-conflict-1299412.html

Probably a lot less than you wanted to know about lighting, but with links to more info:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bllight2.htm

I replaced the bulb with an ordinary 100Watt incandescent, not in a spirit of rebellion, but because that is all I had to hand. The amount of light given out by the new bulb compared to the old is astounding. I have become used to a dimmer level of light as most of my ordinary light sources are fitted with energy saving bulbs, but I’ve decided to enjoy brighter light at least until winter is over.

One thing seems not to be changing and that is categorising light in Watts, named after James Watt who did far more than I knew about, as I discovered from reading a brief biog from the link below.

"Apart from his steam research, which he originally carried out in the grounds of Kinneil House near Linlithgow, Watt was involved in many other projects. He solved the problem of how to convert the up-and-down piston movement to rotary movement (so that engines could power looms, bellows, and other mechanical devices), he created the term "horsepower", and he also invented the rev. counter, a machine for copying sculpture, and a letter copying press (a very early photocopier!). When Watt retired in 1800, he had become a very rich man. In 1882, 63 years after Watt's death, the British Association gave his name to the unit of electrical power - and today James Watt's name is to be found written on almost every lightbulb in the world."

http://level2.phys.strath.ac.uk/ScienceOnStreets/jameswatt.html