• 
• 

Published on February 20, 2008

Nopakhun Limsamarnphun argues that in the face of expensive and carbon-rich oil, now is the time for Thailand to push forward and become a nuclear-capable economy.

This is, on the face of it, a compelling argument, but I feel there are some bits missing from the argument, and not just about safety.

The article puts the bill per plant at around Bt70-billion, which I think is in line with plants now being built in Finland. What is missing from the accounts presented, however, are the hidden costs which so often get dropped by nuclear advocates. The main ones are construction cost over-runs, and future decommissioning and waste disposal costs.

These hidden costs are not small, as Britain's current experience shows. The UK opened the world's first commercial-scale reactor in 1956, hosted the world's first major nuclear accident there in 1957, and is now just starting the process of decommissioning the plant (actually two plants and a plutonium re-processing centre). The cost of dismantling the 62 buildings is estimated at about 36 billion pounds (Bt 2.5 trillion) and may take up to 100 years - and those are not typos, it's 100 years and Bt2.5 trillion, equal to the Thai government budget for two years. The waste will be buried permanently (at extra cost) and the longest-lived radioactive material will remain dangerous for thousands of years into the future.

However, Sellafield is not a typical plant since its main purpose was to manufacture plutonium for nuclear weapons. Britain's other 21 or so nuclear plants are estimated to cost about 1.6bn pounds each (Bt111 billion) to decommission, with a further 400m pounds each (Bt28 billion) for waste disposal. If you use these figures as a rough starting point for possible costs in Thailand, you have to treble the price per plant given in [the author]'s article. And that leaves cost over-runs, a typical feature of building nuclear plants because the engineering is so demanding and often things have to be done again. Even examining cracks in pipes can involve spending vast amounts of money because the environment is so dangerous.

I have no doubt that Thailand is capable of mastering nuclear technology. Thai International is a good example of a company whose safety and engineering are up to international standards, and where there is a culture rather different from mai pen rai. A nuclear operations company could be a similar success.

Finally, it's worth noting that Thailand is one of the least energy-efficient countries in the world, and uses twice as much energy as Western industrial countries for similar economic activities. In other words - energy-inefficient buildings, glacial air-conditioning, traffic jams, foot-on-the-floor driving habits, electric signs everywhere. There is a whole world of opportunity to become more competitive by tackling these unseen problems.

Richard Sproat

Bangkok

-------------------------------

Govt invades and abuses private space

Re: "Lack of vision led to ineffectual smoking ban", Letters, February 18.

Farang Rak Thai's letter raises a point worth further comment. The ill-considered ban on smoking has not merely resulted in the law being flouted, but its injustice and foolishness positively incites such disrespect for the law.

No one doubts that smoking is seriously unhealthy, both for smokers and those who breathe in their stinking exhalations. However, that something is unhealthy cannot, by itself, be sufficient grounds for banning it, nor is the dislike of the many - even an overwhelming majority - grounds for inflicting those personal dislikes on everyone.

The dishonesty behind the injustice of the smoking bans is betrayed by the legislation itself, which is forced to explicitly define restaurants, pubs, clubs and other places as "public places". This is done in order to justify the state interfering in the property rights of the owners, who would otherwise be allowed to offer smoking and non-smoking venues and areas according to what the market - their customers - would actually pay for in order to exercise their rights to choose how they spend their lives.

In defining the word "public" so abnormally, the law annuls a real and important distinction: the actual difference between public and private. In communist nations and those sliding in the direction of ever-greater government interference in every area of everyone's lives, that distinction is also denied. Such a denial is nothing more than an excuse to violate the most basic rights of the citizens and to reduce them to the status of serfs of their rulers.

The lawmakers in Parliament could equally well define the term "perfect health" as meaning the condition of every person within the Kingdom of Thailand; by definition, there would then be no further need to spend anything on hospitals, drugs and so on.

Unfortunately, this definition would be as wrong, as harmful and as unwarranted as the deceit which treats all places as public property, including those that are private property. Naturally, sensible and fair-minded people, whether smokers or not, cannot bring themselves to respect laws that are founded on such dishonesty.

Peter Filicietti

Bangkok

-------------------------------

Smoking ban justified on health grounds

Re: "Anti-smoking lobbyists never deterred by the facts", Letters, February 19.

I'm sure that I am not the only one sick and tired of John Arnone's ridiculous pro-smoking stance. In the face of insurmountable medical evidence he continues to flail around with his conspiracy theories about the United States controlling the world through some mechanism involving a plot to get people to stop smoking. Anyone who finished grade school knows that second-hand smoke can harm others and it has been proven by recognised medical studies throughout the world, not just in the US.

He demands his right to smoke whenever and wherever he wants. In a book Mr Arnone self published last year he states his right to smoke was being crushed out in the US, so he moved to Thailand to escape this perceived oppression. It looks like the developing country he chose, allowing him to smoke to his heart's content, isn't so backward anymore. Wise, educated people and the legislature have spoken loud and clear: smoke if you want, but do not endanger the lives of fellow citizens.

David Barkdull

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation