"None of us would dream of flying in a plane, driving a car, or living in a house which we knew to be built to such shockingly poor standards of construction, supervision and safety"

But we know that precisely *because* of the paranoid safety culture surrounding nuclear power, the substandard plant is still going to be built to vastly better standards of all of the above than almost anything else.

I mean, I know people who've engineered and architected major civils projects - the welding on those is not supervised by someone with a bleedin' degree in weldingology!

Sorry John, but this story (and many others like it) doesn't convince me that there's a 'paranoid safety culture surrounding nuclear power'.

The fact is these standards are there for very good reasons. Adhering to them is surely the *minimum* requirement.

Some people have been on the case for years
http://tinyurl.com/55r99f

..and it's impact on energy panning in UK.

Forthcoming UK Energy Ddeficit. FCUKED

construction of Olkiluoto 3 must be halted.

I mean, I know people who've engineered and architected major civils projects - the welding on those is not supervised by someone with a bleedin' degree in weldingology!

John, I've project-managed a number of such projects (never close to the scale of a nuclear power-plant of course, but I've built a few factories). It's true we didn't have someone "with a degree in weldingology" supervising every weld. But I don't think anyone has claimed that's necessary.

What we did have was strict specifications for the type of weld to be used in each instance, as well as a shift-rotation to ensure that every welder's work was double-checked by another. And that's just to build a soft-drinks plant. I'd expect a far more rigorous regime of safety-checks when building the world's largest nuclear power station.

If it is true that the welders on this project were not working to specifications, and no double / safety checking has been carried out for an entire year, then that's frankly disgraceful and to suggest otherwise is to seriously underestimate the importance (from a health & safety standpoint) of adhering to strict building-standards when it comes to industry.

The worst industrial accident I ever had to deal with during my time as an engineer was a result of a combination of two factors; one of them was badly-welded pipework.

So how can we stop this / or correct it (if it's possible)?

I'm curious as to the legal culture surrounding contractors and subcontractors in Finland. As well as the rates of construction booms pressuring that sector. It seems to me in Canada that construction booms in B.C. led to highrise condo's with leaky windows in downtown Vancouver and fly-by-night roofers here and there, with horror stories I have heard first hand from people in that rainy part of the country. These were backed up by a person I met who worked for such a shady roofing operation. How annoying and disappointing for the buyers. But the boom and the pressure to build left no time for proper hiring or inspection or licencing in some cases.
Minimum safety requirements should be the very least (I'd prefer they didn't bother to build these things in the first freakin' place). The havoc caused from leaky things or a loose foundation in this case would be more than disappointing to say the least...we all have our own imaginations we can extend to our human knowledge of these occurances, I think.

[*Edited to remove personal abuse - let's keep it civil please everyone. Thanks from Justin*]

Ive worked on one of the largest projects in the world in Ft Mcmurray ,Alberta, as a pipefitter building an oil refinery,and every weld has to be welded to a certain specification depending on the pipe , pressures and commodity the pipe will carry !!!!Every welder has to go to school to learn how to weld and every welder is tested by the government to make sure he can weld to the specifications in question.Most welds are x-rayed to make sure the quality has been achieved and everything is double checked and triple checked,this is why we have an apprenticeship program and government red seal exams to certify we meet the journeyman qualifications.I did a 4 yr apprenticeship which included 6 months of schooling .

Let's assume that the welding isn't a big deal. But the fact that it's a nuclear plant -- not just some ordinary factory building -- shouldn't we leave leave nothing to chance that could compromise safety?

When the Manhattan Project scientists were building the bomb in the 1940s, they were already worried about the implications of the technology that they were building. We're paying for that now even after the end of the Cold War.

Stop with these scare tactics. Take your religion to Mars or something.
Greenpeace should be blamed for stopping the nuclear movement in past leaving us with coal and gas plants.

John H - well we're flattered that you think Greenpeace should be blamed for stopping the nuclear movement. The nuclear industry itself does deserves some credit for that itself, after all.

Our response to accusations of 'scare tactics' can be seen here.

Todos debemos apoyar esta campaña, merecemos un ambiente puro, necesitamos esperanza de vida para nuestras proximas generaciones. apoyemos a ser de este mundo un lugar mejor para vivir.

The fact is that from the above details the construction of the structural elements of this power station are flawed. If any faults in the welding give way we will again be in for another radiation leak incident.

Type in 'windscale' or 'sellafield' radiation leak into google and see what has happened already!

I think that saftey standards are there for a reason. You don't hear anybody complaining that new medication goes through many years of testing before it is set loose in the commercial world. Why would a nuclear reactor be exempt from this. Looking at Chernobyl in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster) which cost thousands their lives and many more are still ill from this disaster. I better hope that the Finish reactor doesn't cause a disaster like this.

construction of reactor nuclear is not safeguard, because there is only two wall guard. Normaly is seven wall guard

Considering the enormous dangers that any failure in structure would pose it is a very dangerous practice to inadequately check the welding. How can the structure possibly be considered to be safe ? Nuclear power is gambling with peoples lifes and needs to be forgotten.

What is Areva's track record ? How many plants have they built and are successfully running ? 50 odd ?

No major problems for 40 years.

Looks a pretty good record to me.

Why allow substandard conditions, are they waiting for something disastrous or someone to get seriously hurt before they make this a safe project?

We must immediately remove the rules over contingent liability which allow the cost of any accident above a certain limit to be brone by the goverrnment(currently £140 million in the UK. We should fairly and squarely place the burden for shoddy workmanship on the operator. If this stops the building of new nuclear power stations, then so be it. It will be a great boost to the renewables industry.

As for Areva running "safe" systems, Mr Teague is obviously unaware of the two accidents within two weeks at Areva operated plants in France (see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008060759_nukes19.html)one of which resulted in significant amounts of rasdiation being leaked in to water courses.

There is strong evidence from Germany that the closer you live to a nuclear power station the higher the risk of your child getting leukaemia or some other hard cancers; however the industry denys that their operations are the cause. If I am to be reassured about the safety of nuclear power, I need the cause to be established and for new reactors not to be built in my back yard until that is done.