"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal
with it.

You really are a ****ing liar harry. You've been told many times that:

1) such waste can be glassified
2) this is being done now
3) it has been being done for 20 years

The difficulty is then what to do with the glass, due to the FUD put
about by liars like you that the material might "leak out" of any
repository it's put in.

Tell me what your experience is to define what is crap and what is not.
Aaah. You read the Daily Mail.

While I'm waiting for my Chinese take away order, yes. But that's the
only time.

You might like to explain how radioactive material can "leak out" of
the glassy material.

In the meantime, while you try to think up some drivel in response, how
about ceasing to post cock on this ng. Yours in hope rather than
expectation.

Glassifying it is not dealing with the problem.

Certainly it is; it stabilises the waste for one thing. Better in glass
than in leaking barrels, f'rinstance.

Ah you are a nuclear expert?
Is it being stored in leaking barrels at the moment?


(Tell me where it is being glassified anyway.)
(Is it being done in the UK?

Sellafield I should imagine.

You imagine? Why not find out before spouting crap?

They still don't know what to do with it when it's been glassyfied..

Yeah they do. It can be put in an underground repository if it can't be
recycled as others have posted.

So where is this "undergrpound repostitory"?
Why isn't one being built if all is so simple?
You are a very simple minded and credulous soul.
Comes from reading the DM. Poisons the brain if you take it seriously.