Reykjavík Grapevine - 06.10.2017, Page 6

Most people are
familiar with the
fact that Iceland’s
electricity
comes from
hydropower and,
to a lesser extent,
geothermal
energy. This means
that there are no
nuclear power
plants in Iceland.
Further, even
though Iceland is
a NATO country, no
nuclear weapons
are kept here.
As a signatory
to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation
Treaty, Iceland has
been an officially
recognised non-
nuclear weapons
state since 1970.
However, National
Security Archive
documents
revealed last
year that, in the
1950s, the United
States did briefly
consider housing
nuclear weapons
in Keflavík and
just not telling
the Icelandic
government about
it. Fortunately,
cooler heads
prevailed, as the
US ambassador
to Iceland at the
time pointed out
that if Iceland ever
caught wind of
the weapons, they
would likely leave
NATO. The idea was
scrapped (as far
as we know).
Where
nuclear energy
is considered,
General Electric
did once court
Iceland—again,
in the 1950s—
with the idea of
building a small
nuclear power
plant in the
Westman Islands.
This matter was
actually seriously
explored, but for
some reason it
never really gained
ground, and by
1959 the idea had
fizzled out.
As Iceland has
never had to use
petroleum fuel for
electricity in any
great quantities
(well, unless
you count
the thou-
sands of
tonnes of
coal used in
aluminium
smelters, but
that’s another
topic), the
usefulness of
nuclear energy to
Iceland has always
been minimal at
best. Whatever
your feelings
about nuclear
power, or nuclear
weapons, the
splitting of atoms
for good or war is
something else
that remains
missing in Iceland.
PF

The Peoples’ Party, a new right wing pop-
ulist party setting their sights on Parlia-
ment later this month, have made an
enemy. That enemy is the rights holder
to Sólfarið, a statue you have likely seen
many times before in any photos associ-
ated with Reykjavík.
The Peoples’ Party has been using a
photo of this statue in their introduc-
tory material about the party. This has
caused no small amount of
consternation for Þorbjörg
Jónsdóttir, the daughter
of Jón Gunnar Árnason,
the artist who built Sól-
farið in 1987.
“It shows a great deal
of disrespect for the art-
work and its creator that
Sólfarið is used in this way
and tied in with certain polit-
ical ideas,” Þorbjörg told RÚV.
“This party or any other—it
doesn’t matter. I asked them
to take it down and not use Sólfarið any-
more in their marketing.”
In fact, the matter is now on the desk
of Myndstef, the company which over-
sees the use of rights for works of art.
While the person reporters spoke with
would not comment on this particular
case, she confirmed that when someone
uses a work of art in this manner, they
are usually expected to pay for its use.
Þorbjörg is demanding recompense, as
well as damages for unauthorised use.
Remember Air Bud
Inga Sæland, the chair of the Peoples’
Party, responded by taking the Air Bud
Defense. As anyone will remember, the
plot of Air Bud hinged on the idea that
there is no rule which expressly forbids
a dog from playing basketball.
“The main rule is, if it isn’t banned,
then it’s allowed,” Inga argued, saying
that it was a party employee who took the
photo, meaning they can use the photo
as they please. She also offered her own
passive-aggressive suggestions for the
children of the artist.
“This is some artwork down by the
sea,” Inga said. “It doesn’t say anywhere
that you may not take a photo of the
work. Maybe they should set up a sign
there, so regular people know
you’re not allowed to take
photos of it.”
That, of course, ignores
the main argument
Þorbjörg is making.
It doesn’t matter who
takes a picture of Sól-
farið, but it does matter if
that photo is then used to
market something. Whether
the People’s Party will pay
up or stop using Sólfarið re-
mains to be seen.
The Peoples’
Party Vs. Art
Reykjavík’s most recognisable
statue at the centre of controversy
Words: Paul Fontaine
You might remember the infamous
Eyjafjallajökull eruption of 2010, bain
to newscasters and boon to the
Icelandic tourist industry, and the
sweeping air travel ban across much
of Europe that followed. Plenty of
people were annoyed, not least of all
for how far-reaching the air ban was.
Can’t pilots just fly around the vol-
cano? Turns out, it’s more complicat-
ed than that, as volcanic ash can be
damaging to airplanes in numerous
ways, as Sara Barsotti, Coordinator
for Volcanic Hazards at the Icelandic
Meteorological Office, explains:
“During an explosive eruption,
volcanic material is ejected into the
atmosphere as the result of a frag-
mentation process. The fine fraction
of this material (everything smaller
than 2mm in diameter) is called vol-
canic ash. So, volcanic ash - due to
its shape, small size and weight - can
persist into the atmosphere for quite
a long time and travel long distanc-
es. If an aircraft flies through an ash
cloud, it might suffer from several
types of damage, such as the abra-
sion of the external structure and
surfaces, the ingestion of volcanic
material into the jet engines, and the
contamination of internal air system.
The severity of these damages de-
pends also on the duration of the ex-
posure to volcanic ash. Jet engines
are designed to work at high-temper-
atures and the presence of volcanic
ash in the engines themselves would
cause the volcanic material to melt
and to become sticky. Eventually the
increase in the air pressure in the
turbine would cause an increase of
the engine internal temperature that
could cause the complete failure and
breakage of the engines themselves.
This is of course the worst case sce-
nario, but this has happened in the
past, and the scientific community
and engine manufacturers are work-
ing together to avoid this happening
again in the future.”
ASK A
Scientist
Q: How Is Volcanic Ash
Harmful For Airplanes?
Words:
Paul Fontaine
Photo:
Art Bicnick
6The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 18 — 2017First
ArtisAn BAkery
& Coffee House
Open everyday 6.30 - 21.00
Laugavegur 36 · 101 reykjavik
Sólfarið by Rog01 / Creative Commons
MISSING IN ICELAND
Nuclear Power
Air Bud, legal icon
Inga Sæland, the chair
of the Peoples’ Party, re-
sponded by taking the
Air Bud Defense.”
Photo: Eva P.S. Eibl