AD_ward9

Tino De Rijk:
What happened in a few years? Just have a look at the gallery and the stuff we have been testing in the flesh (not CAD). We did a lot and continue to do so. On is complete publication of the hardware and verification. This gives you all the ammo you need to point out our errors.

On the other points, just have a look and you will find the answers.

As regards nuclear experience, British reactors have not had the accidents so far that befell some others, but they could in future, because at the end of the day, apart from the Canadian CANDU design, reactors adopt designs intended to create military material when required rather than safety first, even when they are civil reactors. This makes them inherently more dangerous. The incidents in New York State and Chernobyl 1986 are good examples of when safety systems are incomplete, allowing operators to do dangerous practices, including switching the safety system off. Processing plants have more accidents than the reactor itself.

The safest reactor is the Canadian CANDU design, but even then one of the first four of these, Pickering A, had an accident in 1994. The safety systems were then reviewed and installed to meet SIL 4 objectives, including a control, signalling and management as well as a system that can shut down the entire reactor in 2 seconds: there has not been an accident since on that reactor design.

You mention "slagging off". Please find the fault in the designs we have published, and the test plans we are publishing. Then please point out the error. I have pointed out serious safety deficiencies publically, only after a manufacturer has let years go by after being advised in writing of these and done nothing. I promise you, if you find errors or weaknesses in any design we do, not a week will go by without response and action.

Alex