6 ms·

I'm a good few miles from Sellafield, but well within the "you're screwed" radius in the event of major leak. On waste it depends what you call "still a proble

I'm a good few miles from Sellafield, but well within the "you're screwed" radius in the event of major leak. On waste it depends what you call "still a problem". Sellafield still has pools storing the spent Magnox fuel resulting from running Britain's nuclear stock flat out through the 1973 miners strike. Those are decaying "nicely". Risk of fuel fires has been mentioned more than once. Sellafield is a reprocessing plant, that hasn't yet touched the 45 year old waste. Yes I'd say nuclear waste is still a problem. I'm far enough outside London that politicians probably think it's perfectly fine. Photos: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/29/sellafield-nuclear-radioactive-risk-storage-ponds-fears https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/29/sellafie...

roenxi 7y ago
> Yes I'd say nuclear waste is still a problem. Can you elaborate on what the problem is? I see a photo of a pond with the sun shining, grass growing and seagulls bathing. Authorities say it is safe. I have friends who live next to an explosives manufacturing plant. They are at a much higher risk then it sounds like you are. I don't see nuclear fuel as being different from any other hazardous industrial material we deal with. Those are tiny ponds, by the way. I reckon they could have a 2nd set as a backup somewhere near by if it came to it. You should see the size of a mine tailings pond, when they fail it causes real problems.
- didbfkf 7y ago
  Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. Temporary storage on site is a very bad idea. Leaks, non uniform site security, drums that were designed for a few decades now being called to serve for a century. Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. So based on information that you don't have but assume exists there is a problem? There is actual evidence of known problems that nuclear solves. Like air pollution from coal. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, the government does lie and I also subscribe to a couple of out-there conspiracy theories. It is just there is a lot of evidence that the nuclear threat is way overblown. > Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between You could move them in to new decade-long storage once a decade. As mentioned, those are small ponds. The world is not made up of absolutes.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      We do have evidence, and we have a distinct pattern of behaviour from the many public inquiries and investigations into the standard of management at Seascale / Windscale / Sellafield / THORP. To be glib, that's why there were so many renamings. To bury the inept history.
  - petre 7y ago
    > Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between And burn coal instead, spread heavy metals and CO2 around and slowly poison everyone. That is the alternative, we saw it in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Oh, btw, Tepco has announced it will discharge further nuclear contaminated water in the ocean as they ran out of space to store it.
    - MertsA 7y ago
      >spread heavy metals Like the trace amounts of Uranium in coal. And don't forget the Radon that comes up with natural gas either. For added fun, Radon is a noble gas so good luck economically removing it as opposed to just venting it all into the atmosphere.
      - petre 7y ago
        The main concern are arsenic and mercury which accumulate in bottom feeding sea critters some of which we eat (mainly shellfish and shrimp). The uptake of uranium are thorium in marine species is rather low, but yes, burning coal also spreads radiation. Some of the byproducts of nuclear fission (I131, Sr90) are more dangerous because they tend to stick around in our bodies. Uranium and thorium get excreted but the first one is also toxic. Of the two Radon isotopes, one has a half life of 55 seconds, the other 2.5 days. The main problem are its decay products: Pb210, Bi210 and Po210. It's better to vent it off into the atmosphere than to let it accumulate in mines and basements.
  - MertsA 7y ago
    Care to point out a couple of those superfund sites? The only ones I'm even familiar with are the Hanford site and Savannah River which were military sites producing nuclear material for nuclear bombs and ICBMs. Hardly comparable to the limited processing that goes into fuel preparation for nuclear power plants, especially considering that fresh fuel is only weakly radioactive and requires no shielding at all between the fuel and the technicians wearing dosimeters all the time.
- flukus 7y ago
  The problem is nuclear advocates can take the poster child for poor management and say it's perfectly safe: > Between 1950 and 2000, there were 21 serious incidents or accidents involving off-site radiological releases that warranted a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, five at level 4 and fifteen at level 3. Additionally during the 1950s and 1960s there were protracted periods of known, deliberate discharges to the atmosphere of plutonium and irradiated uranium oxide particulates.[81] These frequent incidents, together with the large 2005 THORP plant leak which was not detected for nine months, have led some to doubt the effectiveness of the managerial processes and safety culture on the site over the years. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents There's been more than enough problems with nuclear plants that I wouldn't live anywhere near one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accid...
  - ithkuil 7y ago
    On the other hand those events are monitored and taken seriously while other sources of pollution and their long term effects are routinely handwaved by leaders of important countries
  - roenxi 7y ago
    That is what perfectly safe looks like. The poster child for poor management is acceptably safe. The wiki page includes incidents that are paranoid from the perspective of strategy, eg: * "resulted in temporary warnings against swimming in the sea along a 10-mile (16 km) stretch of coast between St. Bees and Eskmeals" * A paperwork issue that was within tolerance of the relevant international standard * "No radiation was released to the environment, and no one was injured by the incident, but because of the large escape of radioactivity to the secondary containment the incident was given an International Nuclear Event Scale level 3 categorisation." 2/3 of those will be INES rated. This is all describing a situation that is substantially safer than most industrial operations I've ever seen. Including many building sites. Try running a building site using granite or a banana plantation with no injuries and no radiation escaping into the surrounding environment; this is a high standard.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  To put aside the whataboutism first. Yes I have seen the consequence of coal mining, on both people and place, which is why I am pleased that the UK now has under fifty coal miners, working in a few small scale open mines. From a peak of around 1 million down the mines. Coal is almost completely out of UK generation, and would be with no nuclear. It is presently the source of last resort - the few coal plants that remain spend most of their time idling. By 2025 there will be zero. If the authorities were able to show an ongoing period of best-practice, excellent management and regulation to ensure the industry (all industry) pays the environmental cost up front from their profit, I'd still be a vocal advocate of nuclear like I was in my naive twenties. No, every time there is systemic ineptness and a public purse left holding the bill for the after-closure clean up. Decades of renaming, cover-up, lies, official inquiries and ignoring the locals. Many of whom are like me - they'd love to accept it and perhaps work there were it not so criminally inept. Same would go for an explosives plant. :p Have confidence in a reprocessing plant that was going to make the UK billions of good Thatcherite pounds reprocessing the world's nuclear waste, that caused an international outrage, and has not actually made profit if you include the large leak and decomissioning cleanup. In fact even if you discount cleanup THORP looks pretty questionable as to whether it was really profitable at all. The UK is a small place, a major accident or Chernobyl scale catastrophe would be easily and rapidly nationwide as guessing, Sellafield is perhaps 300 miles as the crow flies from London - maybe 400 by road. I'm maybe about 40 or 50 miles straight line from the plant - it's 80 or 90 by road. A major sea incident would be similar. No one in the UK can get further than 70 miles from the sea. Authorities say it is safe, neighbouring country Ireland and others in Europe have been campaigning against Sellafield for decades. Not just nuclear activists that you would dismiss, but they have made governmental approaches at diplomatic level and within the EU. That's been because there have been countless incidents, reports of malpractice, official reports and public inquiries of lies and cover ups, and two or three official renamings so we'd forget about the scandal of the Windscale fire, or Seascale. This seam is so rich I am not going to mine it for you. That's all on top of the couple of dozen International Nuclear authority reporting incidents that must be reported. Extensive history of (inadequate) fines too. The TL;DR is Seascale / Windscale / Sellafield is a Western gold standard for how not to do it. It would take considerable evidence and persuasion for me to have faith and confidence in say the USA or French nuclear management competence. I'm entirely prepared to believe there is someone, somewhere doing it with excellence, but capitalism and communism appears to rule that out, so um, where now?
petre 7y ago
The open air storage pond in not ok, but I think the fuel fire scenario is greatly exagerated. I'd have gas masks and plastic suits for family members just in case the site needs to be evacuated. Probably not but it doesn't hurt to at least be prepared.
nickik 7y ago
Nuclear waste from nuclear weapons is quite a bit different compared to what civilan nuclear power tends to produce. Its pretty hard to come up with situations where civilian nuclear waste would be very harmful to anybody.

roenxi 7y ago

> Yes I'd say nuclear waste is still a problem. Can you elaborate on what the problem is? I see a photo of a pond with the sun shining, grass growing and seagulls bathing. Authorities say it is safe. I have friends who live next to an explosives manufacturing plant. They are at a much higher risk then it sounds like you are. I don't see nuclear fuel as being different from any other hazardous industrial material we deal with. Those are tiny ponds, by the way. I reckon they could have a 2nd set as a backup somewhere near by if it came to it. You should see the size of a mine tailings pond, when they fail it causes real problems.

didbfkf 7y ago
Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. Temporary storage on site is a very bad idea. Leaks, non uniform site security, drums that were designed for a few decades now being called to serve for a century. Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between
- roenxi 7y ago
  > Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. So based on information that you don't have but assume exists there is a problem? There is actual evidence of known problems that nuclear solves. Like air pollution from coal. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, the government does lie and I also subscribe to a couple of out-there conspiracy theories. It is just there is a lot of evidence that the nuclear threat is way overblown. > Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between You could move them in to new decade-long storage once a decade. As mentioned, those are small ponds. The world is not made up of absolutes.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    We do have evidence, and we have a distinct pattern of behaviour from the many public inquiries and investigations into the standard of management at Seascale / Windscale / Sellafield / THORP. To be glib, that's why there were so many renamings. To bury the inept history.
- petre 7y ago
  > Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between And burn coal instead, spread heavy metals and CO2 around and slowly poison everyone. That is the alternative, we saw it in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Oh, btw, Tepco has announced it will discharge further nuclear contaminated water in the ocean as they ran out of space to store it.
  - MertsA 7y ago
    >spread heavy metals Like the trace amounts of Uranium in coal. And don't forget the Radon that comes up with natural gas either. For added fun, Radon is a noble gas so good luck economically removing it as opposed to just venting it all into the atmosphere.
    - petre 7y ago
      The main concern are arsenic and mercury which accumulate in bottom feeding sea critters some of which we eat (mainly shellfish and shrimp). The uptake of uranium are thorium in marine species is rather low, but yes, burning coal also spreads radiation. Some of the byproducts of nuclear fission (I131, Sr90) are more dangerous because they tend to stick around in our bodies. Uranium and thorium get excreted but the first one is also toxic. Of the two Radon isotopes, one has a half life of 55 seconds, the other 2.5 days. The main problem are its decay products: Pb210, Bi210 and Po210. It's better to vent it off into the atmosphere than to let it accumulate in mines and basements.
- MertsA 7y ago
  Care to point out a couple of those superfund sites? The only ones I'm even familiar with are the Hanford site and Savannah River which were military sites producing nuclear material for nuclear bombs and ICBMs. Hardly comparable to the limited processing that goes into fuel preparation for nuclear power plants, especially considering that fresh fuel is only weakly radioactive and requires no shielding at all between the fuel and the technicians wearing dosimeters all the time.
flukus 7y ago
The problem is nuclear advocates can take the poster child for poor management and say it's perfectly safe: > Between 1950 and 2000, there were 21 serious incidents or accidents involving off-site radiological releases that warranted a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, five at level 4 and fifteen at level 3. Additionally during the 1950s and 1960s there were protracted periods of known, deliberate discharges to the atmosphere of plutonium and irradiated uranium oxide particulates.[81] These frequent incidents, together with the large 2005 THORP plant leak which was not detected for nine months, have led some to doubt the effectiveness of the managerial processes and safety culture on the site over the years. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents There's been more than enough problems with nuclear plants that I wouldn't live anywhere near one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accid...
- ithkuil 7y ago
  On the other hand those events are monitored and taken seriously while other sources of pollution and their long term effects are routinely handwaved by leaders of important countries
- roenxi 7y ago
  That is what perfectly safe looks like. The poster child for poor management is acceptably safe. The wiki page includes incidents that are paranoid from the perspective of strategy, eg: * "resulted in temporary warnings against swimming in the sea along a 10-mile (16 km) stretch of coast between St. Bees and Eskmeals" * A paperwork issue that was within tolerance of the relevant international standard * "No radiation was released to the environment, and no one was injured by the incident, but because of the large escape of radioactivity to the secondary containment the incident was given an International Nuclear Event Scale level 3 categorisation." 2/3 of those will be INES rated. This is all describing a situation that is substantially safer than most industrial operations I've ever seen. Including many building sites. Try running a building site using granite or a banana plantation with no injuries and no radiation escaping into the surrounding environment; this is a high standard.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
To put aside the whataboutism first. Yes I have seen the consequence of coal mining, on both people and place, which is why I am pleased that the UK now has under fifty coal miners, working in a few small scale open mines. From a peak of around 1 million down the mines. Coal is almost completely out of UK generation, and would be with no nuclear. It is presently the source of last resort - the few coal plants that remain spend most of their time idling. By 2025 there will be zero. If the authorities were able to show an ongoing period of best-practice, excellent management and regulation to ensure the industry (all industry) pays the environmental cost up front from their profit, I'd still be a vocal advocate of nuclear like I was in my naive twenties. No, every time there is systemic ineptness and a public purse left holding the bill for the after-closure clean up. Decades of renaming, cover-up, lies, official inquiries and ignoring the locals. Many of whom are like me - they'd love to accept it and perhaps work there were it not so criminally inept. Same would go for an explosives plant. :p Have confidence in a reprocessing plant that was going to make the UK billions of good Thatcherite pounds reprocessing the world's nuclear waste, that caused an international outrage, and has not actually made profit if you include the large leak and decomissioning cleanup. In fact even if you discount cleanup THORP looks pretty questionable as to whether it was really profitable at all. The UK is a small place, a major accident or Chernobyl scale catastrophe would be easily and rapidly nationwide as guessing, Sellafield is perhaps 300 miles as the crow flies from London - maybe 400 by road. I'm maybe about 40 or 50 miles straight line from the plant - it's 80 or 90 by road. A major sea incident would be similar. No one in the UK can get further than 70 miles from the sea. Authorities say it is safe, neighbouring country Ireland and others in Europe have been campaigning against Sellafield for decades. Not just nuclear activists that you would dismiss, but they have made governmental approaches at diplomatic level and within the EU. That's been because there have been countless incidents, reports of malpractice, official reports and public inquiries of lies and cover ups, and two or three official renamings so we'd forget about the scandal of the Windscale fire, or Seascale. This seam is so rich I am not going to mine it for you. That's all on top of the couple of dozen International Nuclear authority reporting incidents that must be reported. Extensive history of (inadequate) fines too. The TL;DR is Seascale / Windscale / Sellafield is a Western gold standard for how not to do it. It would take considerable evidence and persuasion for me to have faith and confidence in say the USA or French nuclear management competence. I'm entirely prepared to believe there is someone, somewhere doing it with excellence, but capitalism and communism appears to rule that out, so um, where now?

petre 7y ago

The open air storage pond in not ok, but I think the fuel fire scenario is greatly exagerated. I'd have gas masks and plastic suits for family members just in case the site needs to be evacuated. Probably not but it doesn't hurt to at least be prepared.

nickik 7y ago

Nuclear waste from nuclear weapons is quite a bit different compared to what civilan nuclear power tends to produce. Its pretty hard to come up with situations where civilian nuclear waste would be very harmful to anybody.