The government has been warned that the vast nuclear waste dump at Drigg is in danger from coastal erosion, but plans are afoot to dump even more radioactive materials there.
I always seem to be the first to comment. But this is all getting a bit overwhelming isn’t it? The absolute horrendousness (is that a word?) just beggars belief. How can a government be so bad but stay in power? I hate the Tories but really they must have done something positive over the last few years? Surely? Now it’s not just sewage pouring into in the ocean but possibly nuclear waste. God, I’m actually glad I’m getting old... I thought Thatcher was the worst thing that ever happened politically to this country but this lot have changed my mind. They are not only corrupt but abysmally inadequate too. How many months to the General Election?
The nuclear waste problem is nearly universal, and another common feature is the denial of its magnitude by government and the nuclear community. There is always some excuse for inaction, and arguments minimizing the degree of the problem - or worse, dissembling about some grand new technology such as breed and burn, as though we can extricate ourselves by the same reasoning that put us in trouble in the first place. The only way to minimize our nuclear waste problem is to minimize the production of nuclear waste, and that means decommissioning all reactors based on U235 and building no new ones. There is some hope for safe, proliferation-resistant, waste minimizing nuclear power involving sub-critical, accelerator-driven reactors based on the Th232-U233 fuel cycle, but the devil is in the details.
I will be posting a semi-technica. series on nuclear power and weapons starting 5 Sep on my Substack https:stephenschiff.substack.com. Tune in if you're interested!
Sellafield when operating was disastrous for the health of those in its proximity, including those living on the east coast of Ireland. Leukaemia rates were far above the expected rate for decades. And now this reckless behaviour?! I’m speechless. I’d say vote those bastards out but what difference will Labour make in the running of things. I need a strong drink having read this. TFIF!👏✍️
Hi Kevin, having read your response I went looking for the reports on increased Leukaemia rates, I can find nothing other then I now disproved 1982 ITV documentary. What evidence have you read? Please post a link. Many thanks Sam.
Disturbing watch. The chap Wakeford has a couple of hypotheses concerning the incidence of cancers near Sellafield or anywhere else for that matter, but I find both of them hard to believe, especially considering the elephant in the room that is the act of dumping, and now pumping,nuclear waste into the sea.
Thanks Sam. The link no longer works eh? Please try .. Radioactive waste Dumped and Forgotten on YouTube. I think it’s about an hour long but well worth a watch. There are a couple of conflict of interests that come to light towards the end regarding the information around safety . I’ll read the link you sent now. Have you looked into Busby and his findings?
Well Sam, the infectious agent and population mixing hypothesis are both dismissed in the documentary as well as by Chris Busby and others. May I suggest you watch the doc on YouTube? Make your own mind up on the matter of who’s telling the truth, or at least their version of it, and to whom?
Busby is a crank who has been peddling claims for supposed harms from low-level radiation which are simply not supported by the science.
He also notoriously peddled snake oil "anti-radiation" pills in Japan after the Fukushima accident; these turned out to be the sort of mineral supplements one can buy at Holland and Barrett, which he sold at prices which make H&B look reasonable.
Wikipedia is not my cup of tea my friend. Make of that what you will. I think Busby hit the nail on the head in his reply. When watchdogs and information sites are compromised by being paid for and by the very people they are meant to be watching, as is the case with the fishery industry for instance, or as Wikipedia is by so many industries, it’s hard to take what they say seriously.
1. Both Science for Sustainability and Wikipedia are websites running "wiki" software (and both run a particular brand of wiki called MediaWiki) but they are not connected, any more than, say, Another Angry Voice's substack is connected with anybody else's substack.
2. Neither Science for Sustainability, Wikipedia, nor Another Angry Voice's substack are paid for by any industries or other corporate bodies. They are supported by ordinary people like you and me.
It is worth noting that Nuclear power has the lowest death rate per Terawatt-hour that ALL other forms of energy production (0.03) with only Solar betting it by a smidge at 0.02 deaths per Terawatt hour. And nuclear has the lowest green house emissions at 3 tonnes per gigawatt hour of all forms power production. The risks of nuclear are real but always overstated. Its interesting to see the figures below. All the best and happy Friday Sam https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I’m not anti nuclear in the slightest. The designs of today, and those in the pipeline are light years away from those in the past. But, and it’s a big but, the disposal methods as outlined above are scandalous. And even those are better than the disposal of nuclear waste , in barrels, that went on for years into the Irish Sea.
I was sure that I read somewhere that there was new technology for reusing nuclear waste, rather than just burying it? If this is possible then, despite the cost, it seems like a more sensible option in the future. Just building up more and more piles of waste is a disaster waiting to happen.
I did find this, about advanced reactors, that can use waste from standard reactors.
I always seem to be the first to comment. But this is all getting a bit overwhelming isn’t it? The absolute horrendousness (is that a word?) just beggars belief. How can a government be so bad but stay in power? I hate the Tories but really they must have done something positive over the last few years? Surely? Now it’s not just sewage pouring into in the ocean but possibly nuclear waste. God, I’m actually glad I’m getting old... I thought Thatcher was the worst thing that ever happened politically to this country but this lot have changed my mind. They are not only corrupt but abysmally inadequate too. How many months to the General Election?
The nuclear waste problem is nearly universal, and another common feature is the denial of its magnitude by government and the nuclear community. There is always some excuse for inaction, and arguments minimizing the degree of the problem - or worse, dissembling about some grand new technology such as breed and burn, as though we can extricate ourselves by the same reasoning that put us in trouble in the first place. The only way to minimize our nuclear waste problem is to minimize the production of nuclear waste, and that means decommissioning all reactors based on U235 and building no new ones. There is some hope for safe, proliferation-resistant, waste minimizing nuclear power involving sub-critical, accelerator-driven reactors based on the Th232-U233 fuel cycle, but the devil is in the details.
I will be posting a semi-technica. series on nuclear power and weapons starting 5 Sep on my Substack https:stephenschiff.substack.com. Tune in if you're interested!
As someone else has said, I’m just glad I am getting older now, what a dreadful heritage to pass on to our children.
Sellafield when operating was disastrous for the health of those in its proximity, including those living on the east coast of Ireland. Leukaemia rates were far above the expected rate for decades. And now this reckless behaviour?! I’m speechless. I’d say vote those bastards out but what difference will Labour make in the running of things. I need a strong drink having read this. TFIF!👏✍️
Hi Kevin, having read your response I went looking for the reports on increased Leukaemia rates, I can find nothing other then I now disproved 1982 ITV documentary. What evidence have you read? Please post a link. Many thanks Sam.
Professor Chris Busby has written extensively on the subject. Also there’s this
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vcaOX2rWOgc&sIJFyzVOF9iU1LjkNa
Disturbing watch. The chap Wakeford has a couple of hypotheses concerning the incidence of cancers near Sellafield or anywhere else for that matter, but I find both of them hard to believe, especially considering the elephant in the room that is the act of dumping, and now pumping,nuclear waste into the sea.
May thanks Kevin. Interestingly the YouTube link no longer works. Cancer Research UK did an interesting review of the evidence, below. What do you think? Thanks Sam https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/10/31/sellafield-radiation-and-childhood-cancer-shedding-light-on-cancer-clusters-near-nuclear-sites/
Thanks Sam. The link no longer works eh? Please try .. Radioactive waste Dumped and Forgotten on YouTube. I think it’s about an hour long but well worth a watch. There are a couple of conflict of interests that come to light towards the end regarding the information around safety . I’ll read the link you sent now. Have you looked into Busby and his findings?
Well Sam, the infectious agent and population mixing hypothesis are both dismissed in the documentary as well as by Chris Busby and others. May I suggest you watch the doc on YouTube? Make your own mind up on the matter of who’s telling the truth, or at least their version of it, and to whom?
Busby is a crank who has been peddling claims for supposed harms from low-level radiation which are simply not supported by the science.
He also notoriously peddled snake oil "anti-radiation" pills in Japan after the Fukushima accident; these turned out to be the sort of mineral supplements one can buy at Holland and Barrett, which he sold at prices which make H&B look reasonable.
https://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Chris_Busby
Wikipedia is not my cup of tea my friend. Make of that what you will. I think Busby hit the nail on the head in his reply. When watchdogs and information sites are compromised by being paid for and by the very people they are meant to be watching, as is the case with the fishery industry for instance, or as Wikipedia is by so many industries, it’s hard to take what they say seriously.
Kevin
1. Both Science for Sustainability and Wikipedia are websites running "wiki" software (and both run a particular brand of wiki called MediaWiki) but they are not connected, any more than, say, Another Angry Voice's substack is connected with anybody else's substack.
2. Neither Science for Sustainability, Wikipedia, nor Another Angry Voice's substack are paid for by any industries or other corporate bodies. They are supported by ordinary people like you and me.
It is worth noting that Nuclear power has the lowest death rate per Terawatt-hour that ALL other forms of energy production (0.03) with only Solar betting it by a smidge at 0.02 deaths per Terawatt hour. And nuclear has the lowest green house emissions at 3 tonnes per gigawatt hour of all forms power production. The risks of nuclear are real but always overstated. Its interesting to see the figures below. All the best and happy Friday Sam https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I’m not anti nuclear in the slightest. The designs of today, and those in the pipeline are light years away from those in the past. But, and it’s a big but, the disposal methods as outlined above are scandalous. And even those are better than the disposal of nuclear waste , in barrels, that went on for years into the Irish Sea.
I was sure that I read somewhere that there was new technology for reusing nuclear waste, rather than just burying it? If this is possible then, despite the cost, it seems like a more sensible option in the future. Just building up more and more piles of waste is a disaster waiting to happen.
I did find this, about advanced reactors, that can use waste from standard reactors.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030