Talk:Bradwell Power Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stolen fuel rods

Can we find some more reliable sources to back this up -- it's unsourced in the book (unlike some of the other claims it makes), and as the book has a strong bias, people may claim that it isn't reliable as a source. -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt the reliability of the book, and information reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency “shows a persistent problem with the illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials, thefts, losses and other unauthorized activities”.[1] Johnfos (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A week has passed, and I guess there is no more discussion at this stage, so will remove the dubious-discuss tag. Johnfos (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I still find it very bizarre that the only source that we can find for this is a book promoting micro-generation. Sources like the HSE don't seem to mention it all, either., so I've added a {{fact}} pending finding some more reliable sources to back this up -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any child with Google can see that there are other sources about the twenty stolen fuel rods at Bradwell. But none are needed; the source provided is more than enough. And I say again that information reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency “shows a persistent problem with the illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials, thefts, losses and other unauthorized activities”.[2] So we should not be at all surprised that these sorts of things happen. See also List of crimes involving radioactive substances for more general information. Johnfos (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a child, I do have Google, but I don't get anything approaching a reliable source. I'm not saying "it did not happen", nor am I saying "it can't have happened", I'm saying that the bias of the source appears to violate WP:RS. When you read up on the IAEA figures for trafficking illicit material, most of it appears to be medical and research sources. Presumeably if "Any child with Google can see that there are other sources about the twenty stolen fuel rods at Bradwell", you'll be able to share some of them with us. -- Ratarsed (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No wonder you can't find anything, you've narrowed the search too much by using "stolen fuel rods". Johnfos (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even 'stolen "fuel rods" bradwell -wikipedia' doesn't bring back anything relating to such an incident there. Still, I look forward to reading the sources you provide... -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the most important source that showed up in my Google search was Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security by Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon study, with a Foreword by Thomas Hinman Moorer and R. James Woolsey, Jr.. This book says "In 1966, twenty natural uranium fuel rods were stolen from the Bradwell reactor in England...". (p.146) It also documents many other similar cases, in Chapter 11.

If there is any need at all for another source, try The Potential Nuclear Non-State Adversary a report by the Rand Corporation. Page 39 says "In November 1966, twenty uranium fuel elements in canisters were stolen from the Bradwell nuclear power station in the United Kingdom". The Bradwell theft is also mentioned on page 28 of this report.

I think it is sad that some people just don't seem to be able to accept that these things have happened, no matter what sort of evidence is put forward. And that their own searches for evidence are half-hearted at best. I can only assume that these people are in denial. Johnfos (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that I was denying this happened, I merely wanted to see some reliable sources that were verifiable -- as Nuclear technologies are so controversial, it would be easy for someone to come along and remove the Brittle Power source claiming bias (especially as the upward source is not cited in the text). The OTA source looks more credible, although it's a shame I can't find the Lumb Panel report which it cites as the source of the information, as we wouldn't have to rely on secondary sources that way. Please remember that this isn't a battle, but a collaboration. -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness you seem to be calming down...

You said earlier, with reference to Brittle Power, that "the book has a strong bias" and I dispute that. It is one of the most thoroughly researched books I know of and Amory Lovins would have to be among the most well-credentialed energy policy analysts in the world. You also said that you "find it very bizarre that the only source that we can find for this is a book promoting micro-generation", as if there was some sort of conspiracy going on.

If you want collaboration, that's fine, I'm all for that, but I would respectfully ask that you refrain from being so provocative when opening up discussion. Johnfos (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another week has passed, and I guess there is no more discussion at this time, so I will remove the "citation needed" tag... Johnfos (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)