Jump to content

Talk:Great British Nuclear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

Paul works for the BNFL.

Leukemia advice

[edit]

Researchers at Southampton University concluded that a link was present, deducing that radiation damage to men working at the plants had caused genetic abnormalities in their children. After this report British Nuclear Fuels initially advised workers who were being exposed to high levels of radiation not to father children, although they have since withdrawn this advice.

Could you provide a reference for this?

Ben T/C 05:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Southampton research is the old 1984 "Black Report" summarised in the latest COMARE report [1]. The 2005 COMARE report concludes from more recent research in 3.7:
We concluded that the excess of childhood leukaemia and NHL in the area, which is mainly located in the local village of Seascale, when examined in the context of the national distribution of these diseases, is highly unusual in that it has persisted for some tens of years and that it is unlikely to be due to chance. However, we found that no one factor could account for the observed increase in the level of disease, although infection, at least in part, could not be ruled out as having some causal association. Some interaction between different factors could also not be ruled out.
So there are some increased risks in the area, but it's not completely clear why. NB similar raised levels are around Sellafield, Burghfield, Dounreay and Rosyth; and solid tumours levels are significantly raised around Aldermaston, Burghfield, Harwell and Rosyth (para 3.4). Seems there are some worries around most of the UK nuclear weapons/research/reprocessing sites, but no significant raised levels around ordinary nuclear power stations. Rwendland 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Routine radioactive discharges, etc

[edit]

Here is another section that needs a reference before it goes back to the main article:

  • There is much controversy surrounding BNFL's Sellafield plant because of the plant's routine radioactive discharges, nuclear waste accidents, and an excess of leukaemia near the plant.

I don't mind it being in the article, it jst needs a source --Apyule 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BNFL.png

[edit]

Image:BNFL.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfields

[edit]

Springfields is a Salwick, not Preston, Lancashire. And it does not appear on the map. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 06:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Nuclear Fuels Ltd → Great British Nuclear – The UK Government has resurrected and rebranded BNFL as Great British Nuclear, as the new industry coordinating body. There are no plans to continue usage of the BNFL name except for legal purposes. Find out more: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/great-british-nuclear Dreichh (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article is predominantly about BNFL, not Great British Nuclear. Better to create a separate article about the new iteration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would diagree - BNFL is GBN. 'Great British Nuclear' is just a new trading name for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd - they are the same thing. This is explicitly stated here, scroll down to the bottom.
    If you are concerned about article length, it would perhaps make more sense to move the history section to a different article. Dreichh (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That reference tells us that GBN operates through BNFL, GBN is a trading name of BNFL. But nowhere does it say that BNFL no longer has any other activities or other trading names. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true, but GBN will be by far their biggest operation, if not their only operation - we haven't seen any real activity from BNFL for over a decade now, to the extent that this article itself described the company as 'defunct'. Remember, the page name is meant to help readers find the article - keeping the BNFL name for the title doesn't achieve that.
    If you can find evidence that BNFL has other operations that would be listed on this Wiki, then I agree the title should stay as is - but if not it's much clearer if we use their trading name of Great British Nuclear. Dreichh (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to my previous comment, I now have a source that BNFL has no other trading activity. According to their latest accounts on Companies House, published Feb 2023, BNFL - until now - 'no longer has any trading activity' and has not had any for the past 13 years.
    Therefore, GBN and BNFL are entirely one in the same - BNFL has no other activities. As such, the article should be under its new trading name for ease of finding the article as GBN will soon be far more prominent than BNFL was.
    Again, if there are concerns about page length I would assert the history section should be moved to a different page. Dreichh (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is not about article length, but about renaming a page about a very well-known organisation that existed for decades. Given it was in abeyance for over a decade and has just been revived with a different name I don't see why we need to put details of both in the same article. Better to have two separate articles about the old and new versions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea of 'old' and 'new' versions is what I think we should avoid - they are the same thing. It is a crucial part of BNFL's history that it now trades as GBN, which is the name it will be best known as in the future. To separate the two articles will imply that they are different, which they aren't.
    I'd also point out that there must be a reason that they chose BNFL to become GBN. This could become more relevant in the future, as it is likely something to do with how it is funded. Dreichh (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support following Dreichh's explanations. I don't see page length being a concern at present, though agree that the history could be split later if needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above discussion this seems reasonable. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separating Great British Nuclear and BNFL Wikipedia entries

[edit]

Hi @Necrothesp, @dreichh, @Rosbif73, and @Rreagan007.

Full disclosure - I work for Great British Nuclear and I'd like to add to the discussion you had last year about this page. GBN and BNFL share a company registration number, simply for administrative reasons when establishing as a legal entity, but their activities are completely different. We'd like to propose that GBN has its own page. The company registration number is the only item remaining substantively of BNFL, and GBN inherits nothing of BNFL's former remit, operations or assets.

We think that there's going to be increasing amounts of interest in GBN's activities over the coming months as it progresses its nuclear new build programme, and we think for the benefit of public understanding of GBN, it would be helpful to not conflate its remit with the history of BNFL, which incidentally, as a record we think is better served also not being conflated with GBN's remit. Though for transparency, we think it would be appropriate to maintain the reference - and an explanation as to why the two organisations have the same company registration.

Being mindful of etiquette on Wikipedia - can I seek your views? StephenGBN (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree with this, as I stated above. Clearly very different entities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I would oppose this, on the basis of the initial discussion that originally put the two in the same article and because there isn't yet enough content around GBN to justify its own article. I also still cannot find precedent on Wikipedia where the same legal company has separate articles for its brands over time (as opposed to separate subdivisions).
I would also note we have a similar discussion going on around Magnox Ltd, which at the moment has consensus that NRS and Magnox should share the same article. Because of this, and because you are from GBN and we are just a few editors that have a prior-established positions on this merge/demerge, I would support going to an RfC with a broader question of whether the same legal company should be given separate articles to reach a solution with proper community consensus. Xii Xii 17:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_British_Nuclear&oldid=1243832021"