"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:16:44 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:37:04 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:18:12 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:51:16 -0000, Tim Streater


It doesn't cause any harm: it's in sealed containers.

Which never break over 100s of years when the company is bankrupt
and the
government has changed and a war broke out and there was an
earthquake,
yeah
right.

Under those circs the status of the underground repository is the
least
of your worries.

Rubbish. The war might not directly affect me, but the nuclear
fallout
would.

Why d'ye think I suggest the Marianna Trench? Cos down there 37,000
feet below sea level, it ain't gonna matter.

Yeah, bugger the sea life. Bugger all those who eat the radioactive
fish.

What fish would those be then, at 37,000 feet below sea level?

Is nuclear waste heavier than water then? And immune to currents?

Once it's been glassified and encased in steel/concrete it is. Which is
the SOP for it when it's put in an underground repository. Did ye think
they'd just send out a tanker and pump it over the side?

Even if it all escaped, it could just join the 4 billion tons of
uranium in the Earth's oceans. And that's just the uranium.

You may well be correct. Too much Greenpeace bull**** about.

But we do hear a lot about the trade of spent fuel and the problems of no
country wanting it....

Some do in fact reprocess it and return everything to the source country.