"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 1, 8:36 pm, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:









On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been flown
into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?



These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands,
of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

You are exactly right.

Nope, with breeders alone.

It's lack of political will that is the problem.

Nope.

There's a lot of people here living in the past.

Yeah, like you who hasn't even noticed what
breeders and the thorium system are about.

They think we can carry on (irresponsibly) as before.

We know we can and that we have better ways of doing
things available when it makes sense to go that route.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 1, 9:25 pm, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 01/06/13 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head
off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a
deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been
flown into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

Almost nothing. They are deliberately designed to withstand that.

Really? A large passenger aircraft full of fuel which ignites on impact?

As I said previously, frightening complacency.

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only madmen
could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.









These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not
thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how
to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing
them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer
to detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap.

Neither is any other power.

And the first new one (Hinkley) is to be built in the
only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.

And none of the french ones are.

On 02/06/2013 06:24, harry wrote:
As usual you are full of crap as always. .The mercury from CFLs can
be recovered and reused and will always be useful.
The important thing is that defunct CFLs are disposed of properly Ie
in the recycle centre not just chucked away.

Given their fragility, actually removing them from their lamp-holders,
storing them and transporting them to such a recycling point is full of
opportunities to release the mercury.

Am also wondering what will always be useful about mercury? We seem to
have moved away from its use for thermometers, sphygmomanometers,
electric switches, and anything else that could allow exposure of the
public. There appears to be a wholesale move towards LED lighting
leaving both CFLs and conventional fluorescent with a probably finite
future. Dental amalgam has been increasingly rejected both by patients
and by various authorities. So we still use it as Thiomersal. There are
still a few niche uses. But looks to me as if we are heading for a lake
of unwanted, unusable mercury that will nonetheless need to be safely
stored.

--
Rod

On Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:25:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only madmen
could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.

We live with a long list of nightmare scenarios daily. The job of engineers is to shrink the risks to near zero. In the case of an airplane attack it wasnt hard to do. You can go back to sleep.


NT

On 02/06/2013 01:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 21:25, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head
off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a
deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been
flown into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

Almost nothing. They are deliberately designed to withstand that.

Really? A large passenger aircraft full of fuel which ignites on impact?

and a bit more actually.

In whose opinion, certainly not this one?


"Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand hurricanes,
earthquakes, and other extreme
events. But deliberate attacks by large airliners loaded with fuel, such
as those that crashed into
the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not analyzed when design
requirements for todays
reactors were determined.15 Concern about aircraft crashes was
intensified by a taped interview
shown September 10, 2002, on the Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which
contained a statement that
Al Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its list of
2001 attack sites.
In light of the possibility that an air attack might penetrate the
containment structure of a nuclear
plant or a spent fuel storage facility, some interest groups have
suggested that such an event could
be followed by a meltdown or spent fuel fire and widespread radiation
exposure."
CRS Report for the US Congress, August 2012.




As I said previously, frightening complacency.

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only
madmen could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.

Funny sort of nightmare.

Glad you think so.

On 02/06/2013 09:18, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:25:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only madmen
could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.

We live with a long list of nightmare scenarios daily. The job of engineers is to shrink the risks to near zero. In the case of an airplane attack it wasnt hard to do. You can go back to sleep.


More dangerous complacency. 'There are lies, damned lies' - then there
are the assurances of the nuclear lobby.



'The risk that planes will crash into nuclear plants and release
potentially lethal clouds of radioactivity is significantly higher than
official estimates, according to expert evidence to a public inquiry.

Studies submitted to the inquiry to expand Lydd airport in Kent , which
began last week, cast doubt on assurances from the government's Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) that the dangers of accidental plane crashes
are too small to worry about.

An analysis by an independent expert concludes that the method used by
the HSE to calculate the likelihood of crashes is "flawed" and could
underestimate the risk by 20%. And a previously secret report for the
HSE accepts that a crash could trigger a "significant radiological
release".'





"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace
report which examines the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to plane
crashes in Germany.

Nuclear expert, Dr Helmut Hirsch, says in the report that in a worse
case scenario of a commercial passenger jet hitting a nuclear plant, the
reactor's containment would be breached, the cooling systems would fail,
and within a very short period of time less than one hour - the reactor
core would begin to meltdown. A catastrophic release of radioactivity on
the scale of Chernobyl would follow. Dr Hirsch's report was released as
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General, Dr Mohamed
El Baradei, acknowledged that the world's nuclear reactors and other
facilities are vulnerable to a September 11th type attack."

On 02/06/13 06:27, harry wrote:
It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap. And the first new one (Hinkley)
is to be built in the only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.
********. The whole dogger bank used to be a thriving community(Cf
Doggerland) Its now more or less below sea level. It got tsunami-ed.
About 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

In Defras report on possible imacts of any seismic event on the UK,
noweher do they assess any risk greater than a 1m rise in sea level,
well below the level of risk to any nuclear installation,
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm.../tsunami06.pdf
and the overall risk is not to nuclear power plants but to low lying
areas of land - it is comscevable that large areas of the Fens and other
river estuary areas might be flooded. Having a nuclear power station
flood isd the least of our worries.

And of course post Fuku all power stains are assessed to withstand much
greater levels of flooding.



Out of the mouths of greens and eco-warriors come lies, lies, and more lies


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 02/06/13 08:32, polygonum wrote:
On 02/06/2013 06:24, harry wrote:
As usual you are full of crap as always. .The mercury from CFLs can
be recovered and reused and will always be useful.
The important thing is that defunct CFLs are disposed of properly Ie
in the recycle centre not just chucked away.

Given their fragility, actually removing them from their lamp-holders,
storing them and transporting them to such a recycling point is full
of opportunities to release the mercury.

Am also wondering what will always be useful about mercury? We seem to
have moved away from its use for thermometers, sphygmomanometers,
electric switches, and anything else that could allow exposure of the
public. There appears to be a wholesale move towards LED lighting
leaving both CFLs and conventional fluorescent with a probably finite
future. Dental amalgam has been increasingly rejected both by patients
and by various authorities. So we still use it as Thiomersal. There
are still a few niche uses. But looks to me as if we are heading for a
lake of unwanted, unusable mercury that will nonetheless need to be
safely stored.

its ********. Without running it through a nuclear reactor, the amount
of mercury in the world (excluding what has been sent off into space in
satellites, or arrived in meteorites) is and always has been and always
will be, a constant.

It is far more deadly than radioactive elements which are, by reason of
their radioactivity, reducing as the earth ages. And are assisted in
that process by running them through nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power reduces the net amount of radioactivity in the earth overall.

I only meant to illustrate the fact that 'storing a dangerous substance
for millions of years' is as applicable to many non radioactive
substances as the few radioactive ones, and yet its not done. Classic
doublethink by the anti-nuclear brigade.

I mean logical extension of the nuclear panic theory would have us
spending trillions digging up Dartmoor, refining the uranium in it and
encasing it in glass blocks and putting it in safe storage to reduce the
background levels there to the sorts of levels the Japanese are trying
to get the exclusion zone to.

There is an estimated 4 BILLION tonnes of radioactive uranium in the
sea. Which will be there for the next few billion years. Its
radioactive.,. It always has been and will be so for aeons to come.

Yet putting even a few tonnes more in there is frowned on.

The human body contains a highly detectable amount of Carbon 14 (and
indeed potassium 40) which is produced all the time by cosmic rays
hitting the atmosphere. This means that corpses are low level
radioactive waste that 'need to be stored for millions of years' too..





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 02/06/13 09:30, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/06/2013 09:18, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:25:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only madmen
could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.

We live with a long list of nightmare scenarios daily. The job of
engineers is to shrink the risks to near zero. In the case of an
airplane attack it wasnt hard to do. You can go back to sleep.


More dangerous complacency. 'There are lies, damned lies' - then there
are the assurances of the nuclear lobby.



'The risk that planes will crash into nuclear plants and release
potentially lethal clouds of radioactivity is significantly higher
than official estimates, according to expert evidence to a public
inquiry.

Studies submitted to the inquiry to expand Lydd airport in Kent ,
which began last week, cast doubt on assurances from the government's
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that the dangers of accidental plane
crashes are too small to worry about.

An analysis by an independent expert concludes that the method used by
the HSE to calculate the likelihood of crashes is "flawed" and could
underestimate the risk by 20%. And a previously secret report for the
HSE accepts that a crash could trigger a "significant radiological
release".'





"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a
commercial passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a
new Greenpeace report which examines the vulnerability of nuclear
power plants to plane crashes in Germany.

Nuclear expert, Dr Helmut Hirsch, says in the report that in a worse
case scenario of a commercial passenger jet hitting a nuclear plant,
the reactor's containment would be breached, the cooling systems would
fail, and within a very short period of time less than one hour - the
reactor core would begin to meltdown. A catastrophic release of
radioactivity on the scale of Chernobyl would follow. Dr Hirsch's
report was released as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Director-General, Dr Mohamed El Baradei, acknowledged that the world's
nuclear reactors and other facilities are vulnerable to a September
11th type attack."

yadda yadda.

Id be far more concerned about it hitting a spent fuel pond actually.
But even there, the loss of life would be from the plane crash, not the
radioactive releases.

I'd be MOST concerned about a plane crashing into a chemical plant, or a
refinery. There you really COULD see widescale loss of life.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 01/06/2013 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been flown
into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

Virtually nothing. Reactor cores are built on a scale matched only by
the strongest of military bunkers and they are inside very strong
containment vessels. The WTC was built to be as light as possible,
although it would still have withstood an impact from the largest
aircraft around when it was designed - the Boeing 707.

Here is an analysis of the risk carried out after 9/11, using the
Pentagon crash as the basis, as that was a lot stronger structure than
the WTC:

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/aircraftcrashbreach/

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

Then your understanding is wrong. We have had the technology to
reprocess 95% of nuclear waste, including all high level waste, since
the first fast rector was built. It is simply a lot cheaper to store it.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 2, 10:08*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 06:27, harry wrote: It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap. And the first new one (Hinkley)
is to be built in the only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.

********. The whole dogger bank used to be a thriving community(Cf
Doggerland) Its now more or less below sea level. It got tsunami-ed.
About 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

In Defras report on possible imacts of any seismic event on the UK,
noweher do they assess any risk greater than a 1m rise in sea level,
well below the level of risk to any nuclear installation,http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm...nts/risk/tsuna...
and the overall risk is not to nuclear power plants but to low lying
areas of land - it is comscevable that large areas of the Fens and other
river estuary areas might be flooded. Having a nuclear power station
flood isd the least of our worries.

And of course post Fuku all power stains are assessed to withstand much
greater levels of flooding.

Out of the mouths of greens and eco-warriors come lies, lies, and more lies

Once more TurNiP the lying toad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607

On 31/05/2013 10:46 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html


+1

And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with
Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was
actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was
a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims.

Nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner. However, there are those who do
not want cheap. Therefore, the information you receive will be negative.



--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On Jun 2, 7:27*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Jun 1, 8:36 pm, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:

On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been flown
into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands,
of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.
You are exactly right.

Nope, with breeders alone.

It's lack of political will that is the problem.

Nope.

There's a lot of people here living in the past.

Yeah, like you who hasn't even noticed what
breeders and the thorium system are about.


You haven't named one yet.

On Jun 2, 7:29*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Jun 1, 9:25 pm, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/06/13 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head
off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a
deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been
flown into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

Almost nothing. They are deliberately designed to withstand that.

Really? A large passenger aircraft full of fuel which ignites on impact?

As I said previously, frightening complacency.

I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only madmen
could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not
thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how
to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing
them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer
to detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.

It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. *Nuclear power is not cheap.

Neither is any other power.

And the first new one (Hinkley) is to be built in the
only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.

And none of the french ones are.

One was closed down due to flooding.

On 01/06/2013 11:16 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...

iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben
there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch"
because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no
problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution
has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem.
But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done?

What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years"
is hard for you to understand?

Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a
clue what to do with all this waste.

As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may
fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted.

What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard
for you to understand?

As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups
in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more.

No there haven't.

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I
thought possible.


Not necessarily thick, ..misinformed. Everything is big business and
anything that may provide a cheaper means of achieving something is
quickly stifled by 'Them'. 'They' that control the puppets that are the
government want you dead in the head and, they want your money.

Mass emissions may well be dangerous but, like many explosions, once
over, are less so. In ignorance, what to do with the populace is the
concern? To know the truth, let those who want to, move back into the
areas of concern. Then we will know.

After all, many nice things grow in ****.


--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 01/06/2013 4:59 PM, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...


iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben
there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch"
because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no
problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's
reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution
has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem.
But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done?

What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years"
is hard for you to understand?

Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a
clue what to do with all this waste.

As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may
fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted.

What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard
for you to understand?

As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups
in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more.

No there haven't.

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I
thought possible.

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on to
future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I
happily plead guilty.

However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated
by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason
logically and sensibly.



+1

Agreed, I stopped name calling a long while back.


--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 01/06/2013 5:09 PM, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.06.2013 17:29, polygonum wrote:

And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than
slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active
iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems.

It is very simple. A dose of 7 sievert during 30 days will kill 50% of
rats. A dose of 8 sievert will kill all the rats. When the dose is 3.5
sievert more than 99% of the rats are still alive.

Some people study theology. They get a job as a priest with salary from
the government. If the priest one day discover that there is no God, he
may have a problem. I think he solves the problem by continuing his job
as a priest.

Some people study environmental physics. They get a job in a radiation
protection agency with their salary paid by the government. One day they
discover that the LNT theory is wrong. I think they continue their
job and do not talk loud about their new discovery.


+1

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 02/06/2013 16:16, harry wrote:
....
Once more TurNiP the lying toad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607


Which points out that the tsunami hypothesis does not explain
simultaneous flooding in Norfolk. However, more to the point, the
commemorative plaques are two metres above sea level. The mean high
water springs at Hinkley Point are 5.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The
flood defences are 8.22m AOD, or more than three metres higher and the
1607 floods are the worst known event in the area.

Colin Bignell

On 02/06/2013 16:17, RayL12 wrote:
....
And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with
Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was
actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was
a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims.
....

One report pointed out that those appeared sooner than would normally be
expected from radiation exposure and postulated that part, possibly a
significant part, of the apparent increase might be due to increased
surveillance and detection.

Colin Bignell

On 01/06/2013 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been flown
into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

The death toll would have been less.
There would have been unnecessary panic from you and harry.




These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.



You can't detoxify nuclear waste any more than you can detoxify any
other toxin.
Radiation is not toxic, it doesn't poison you despite what you think.

All you need to do is store the stuff until its safe, that is a few
decades for the highly radioactive stuff and not at all for the long
lasting stuff as it isn't very radioactive.
You could store plutonium in a cardboard box and it would be safe as far
as radiation goes.

On 01/06/2013 21:25, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been
flown into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

Almost nothing. They are deliberately designed to withstand that.

Really? A large passenger aircraft full of fuel which ignites on impact?

Do you have any idea how a containment vessel is built?
You could fly a fully fuelled a380 into it and it wouldn't penetrate it.

The worst place you could crash it would be the turbine building, then
you might put it out of action for a few weeks while they fix the
generating plant.


As I said previously, frightening complacency.



I don't wish to be offensive, but it is my firm belief that only madmen
could possibly risk such a nightmare scenario.


Only a madman could think such a nightmare existed in the first place.

On 02/06/13 16:16, harry wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:08 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 06:27, harry wrote: It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap. And the first new one (Hinkley)
is to be built in the only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.
********. The whole dogger bank used to be a thriving community(Cf
Doggerland) Its now more or less below sea level. It got tsunami-ed.
About 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

In Defras report on possible imacts of any seismic event on the UK,
noweher do they assess any risk greater than a 1m rise in sea level,
well below the level of risk to any nuclear installation,http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm...nts/risk/tsuna...
and the overall risk is not to nuclear power plants but to low lying
areas of land - it is comscevable that large areas of the Fens and other
river estuary areas might be flooded. Having a nuclear power station
flood isd the least of our worries.

And of course post Fuku all power stains are assessed to withstand much
greater levels of flooding.

Out of the mouths of greens and eco-warriors come lies, lies, and more lies
Once more TurNiP the lying toad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607
I am not lying. YOU said the only place the UK had EVER had a tsunami
was the Bristol channel.

I pointed you at evidence that showed that it was NOT the only place,
and you call me a liar.
I pointed opu at a stydy that shows that TSUNAMI risk was less than a meter.

Storm surge is a greaterrisk.

The 1607 flooding might have been either. Te surge was at most two
meters. This is well below anything that would bother a nuclear power
station

So its harry lying as usual.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 02/06/13 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/06/2013 16:17, RayL12 wrote:
...
And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with
Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was
actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was
a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims.
...

One report pointed out that those appeared sooner than would normally
be expected from radiation exposure and postulated that part, possibly
a significant part, of the apparent increase might be due to increased
surveillance and detection.

Colin Bignell

I think thyroid cancer due to I-131 is almost instant in disease terms.

There is no real doubt that the massive doses of I 131 did cause a lot
of thyroid cancers, which equally could have been prevented by issuing
iodine pills as was done instantly at Fukushima. I 131 is gone in days,
or at most weeks.

That, plus radon for natural sources, remains about the only two routes
where the data supports cancer-from-radiation apart from medical uses:
radiotherapy ihas been statistically linked to secondary cancers up to
20 years later. And of course heavy chronic doses in industry as in the
girls who used to lick the radium tipped paintbrushes when painting
luminous dials etc..





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 02/06/13 20:27, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/06/2013 20:36, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 19:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
...
What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history),

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful
than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake
itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than
Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off
a waxwork in Madam Tussauds.

terrorist attacks, etc?

If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep
cave in the middle of nowhere.

Whether they bother me, or indeed what happens to me, is of little
consequence. What happens to the world and, more importantly, what
happends to future generations, is not.

You tell me what might have happened if those aeroplanes had been flown
into nuclear power stations instead of the World Trade Centre?

The death toll would have been less.
There would have been unnecessary panic from you and harry.




These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not
thousands, of
years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to
detoxify them.

We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them
is cheaper.

Really? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we are no closer to
detoxifying nuclear wastes now than we were 70 years ago.



You can't detoxify nuclear waste any more than you can detoxify any
other toxin.
Radiation is not toxic, it doesn't poison you despite what you think.

All you need to do is store the stuff until its safe, that is a few
decades for the highly radioactive stuff and not at all for the long
lasting stuff as it isn't very radioactive.
You could store plutonium in a cardboard box and it would be safe as
far as radiation goes.

They gave the queen a couple of kg of Pu239 in a plastic bag to hold,
show her how warm it got.

This is well documented.

Plutonium isn't that dangerous really. Lots of people have swallowed
it, inhaled it and been exposed to it in weapons programs. Its never
been shown to cause any issues decades later.
Lot nicer than polonium anyway...



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 02/06/2013 21:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/06/13 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/06/2013 16:17, RayL12 wrote:
...
And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with
Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was
actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was
a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims.
...

One report pointed out that those appeared sooner than would normally
be expected from radiation exposure and postulated that part, possibly
a significant part, of the apparent increase might be due to increased
surveillance and detection.

Colin Bignell

I think thyroid cancer due to I-131 is almost instant in disease terms.

It still takes time for the cancer to grow to a detectable size.
Presumably the point was that some of the cancers detected were more
advanced than they should have been had they been due to the Chernobyl
accident. Exposure to radioactive iodine is not the only cause of
thyroid cancer. In the UK the a lifetime risk of developing thyroid
cancer is 1.7 per 100,000 population for males and 4.7 per 100,000 for
females.

There is no real doubt that the massive doses of I 131 did cause a lot
of thyroid cancers, which equally could have been prevented by issuing
iodine pills as was done instantly at Fukushima.

Indeed.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 2, 9:14*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 16:16, harry wrote:







On Jun 2, 10:08 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 06:27, harry wrote: It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap. And the first new one (Hinkley)
is to be built in the only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.
********. The whole dogger bank used to be a thriving community(Cf
Doggerland) Its now more or less below sea level. It got tsunami-ed.
About 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

In Defras report on possible imacts of any seismic event on the UK,
noweher do they assess any risk greater than a 1m rise in sea level,
well below the level of risk to any nuclear installation,http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm...nts/risk/tsuna...
and the overall risk is not to nuclear power plants but to low lying
areas of land - it is comscevable that large areas of the Fens and other
river estuary areas might be flooded. Having a nuclear power station
flood isd the least of our worries.

And of course post Fuku all power stains are assessed to withstand much
greater levels of flooding.

Out of the mouths of greens and eco-warriors come lies, lies, and more lies
Once more TurNiP the lying toad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607

I am not lying. YOU said the only place the UK had EVER had a tsunami
was the Bristol channel.

I pointed you at evidence that showed that it was NOT the only place,
and you call me a liar.
I pointed opu at a stydy that shows that TSUNAMI risk was less than a meter.

Storm surge is a greaterrisk.

The 1607 flooding might have been either. Te surge was at most two
meters. This is well below anything that would bother a nuclear power
station


7.7 meters at Weston super Mare.

On 03/06/2013 07:08, harry wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:14 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 16:16, harry wrote:







On Jun 2, 10:08 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 02/06/13 06:27, harry wrote: It's possible to design against such and eventuality but it adds to
the cost. Nuclear power is not cheap. And the first new one (Hinkley)
is to be built in the only place where the UK experienced a tsunami.
********. The whole dogger bank used to be a thriving community(Cf
Doggerland) Its now more or less below sea level. It got tsunami-ed.
About 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

In Defras report on possible imacts of any seismic event on the UK,
noweher do they assess any risk greater than a 1m rise in sea level,
well below the level of risk to any nuclear installation,http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm...nts/risk/tsuna...
and the overall risk is not to nuclear power plants but to low lying
areas of land - it is comscevable that large areas of the Fens and other
river estuary areas might be flooded. Having a nuclear power station
flood isd the least of our worries.

And of course post Fuku all power stains are assessed to withstand much
greater levels of flooding.

Out of the mouths of greens and eco-warriors come lies, lies, and more lies
Once more TurNiP the lying toad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607

I am not lying. YOU said the only place the UK had EVER had a tsunami
was the Bristol channel.

I pointed you at evidence that showed that it was NOT the only place,
and you call me a liar.
I pointed opu at a stydy that shows that TSUNAMI risk was less than a meter.

Storm surge is a greaterrisk.

The 1607 flooding might have been either. Te surge was at most two
meters. This is well below anything that would bother a nuclear power
station


7.7 meters at Weston super Mare.

That will be Above Ordnance Chart Datum, rather than the 2 metres above
sea level referred to. Using OCD as a reference point, the 1607 flood
would have been 7 metres at Hinkley Point, compared to the flood defence
level of 8.22 metres.

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.


--

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:08:23 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Do you have any idea how a containment vessel is built?
You could fly a fully fuelled a380 into it and it wouldn't penetrate it.

You'd possibly penetrate the reactor building at some UK nukes. Not a hope in
hell of getting any further. Some of the early magnox stations were
significantly more vulnerable.

The worst place you could crash it would be the turbine building, then
you might put it out of action for a few weeks while they fix the
generating plant.

A few weeks? Not a hope in hell of that, think nearer a few years. Even a
hydrogen explosion followed by an oil fire on an alternator at Drax a few years
ago put a unit out of action for over 6 months, even though there was an
immediate 100% spares capability. 50m away you could barely see much more than
a bit of discoloured paint.

P.S. The compact layout of the turbine building used at some of the AGR's was
such that construction *when new* was nigh on impossible.


--

On Jun 4, 9:46*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. *Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--

So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?
Retard.

On 04/06/13 18:14, harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:46 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace
More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--
So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?
Retard.
Harry sweety,

"according to (a new) Greenpeace"!= "evidence".


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 4, 9:46*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. *Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--

So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?
Retard.

It's Greenpeace you retard. They don't do real facts just made up ones.

--

On 04/06/2013 18:14, harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:46 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--

So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?

Remember Greenpeace's 'evidence' that Brent Spar contained 5,500 tonnes
of oil?

However, the quote Farmer Giles gave was not an accurate assessment of
what the report said. Yes it said that there could be a worse release of
radiation than at Chernobyl. Yes it said that a nuclear plant might be
attacked by ramming it with an airliner. However, the two events were
not linked. The massive release of radiation was in the scenario where
the plant was under military attack and was subjected to a sustained
artillery barrage that destroyed not only the containment vessel, but
also caused widespread damage to the safety, control and backup systems.

Where they go into the realms of Brent Spar is with the assertion that
this would result in a China Syndrome core meltdown, which did not
happen at either Three Mile Island or Fukushima. Of course, the report
was written in 2005, so they had no actual knowledge of what would
happen when a nuclear power plant lost all its backup systems.

Colin Bignell

On 04/06/13 23:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/06/2013 18:14, harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:46 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles
wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a
commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new
Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the
craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest
threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the
sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might
run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--

So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?

Remember Greenpeace's 'evidence' that Brent Spar contained 5,500
tonnes of oil?

However, the quote Farmer Giles gave was not an accurate assessment of
what the report said. Yes it said that there could be a worse release
of radiation than at Chernobyl.

very hard to see how.

Short of somehow detonating a 50 tonne bomb under the pressure vessel.

Chernobyl was a BIG reactor with no secondary containment, fully melted
down and on fire It doesn't get worse than that.


Yes it said that a nuclear plant might be attacked by ramming it with
an airliner. However, the two events were not linked. The massive
release of radiation was in the scenario where the plant was under
military attack and was subjected to a sustained artillery barrage
that destroyed not only the containment vessel, but also caused
widespread damage to the safety, control and backup systems.

well yes, but frankly if its under that sort of attack, why not go the
whole hog and nuke the bloody thing. Or better, build an extremely dirty
bomb and detonate it at 5 miles up.


Where they go into the realms of Brent Spar is with the assertion that
this would result in a China Syndrome core meltdown, which did not
happen at either Three Mile Island or Fukushima. Of course, the report
was written in 2005, so they had no actual knowledge of what would
happen when a nuclear power plant lost all its backup systems.

China syndrome is simply not possible. Its a scare story fiction. Its a
bugger to get a reactor critical at all. The moment the fuel rods melt,
its even harder. However, thats why you have secondary containment. If
it does the crap drops into the collecting pot and smoulders there for a
few tens of years. like 3MI. In a few more tens of years 3MI will be a
useful source of fuel. There's no hurry. Its not going anywhere.



Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 05/06/2013 00:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/13 23:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/06/2013 18:14, harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:46 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles
wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a
commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new
Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the
craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest
threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the
sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might
run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--

So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?

Remember Greenpeace's 'evidence' that Brent Spar contained 5,500
tonnes of oil?

However, the quote Farmer Giles gave was not an accurate assessment of
what the report said. Yes it said that there could be a worse release
of radiation than at Chernobyl.

very hard to see how.

Short of somehow detonating a 50 tonne bomb under the pressure vessel.

Chernobyl was a BIG reactor with no secondary containment, fully melted
down and on fire It doesn't get worse than that.


Yes it said that a nuclear plant might be attacked by ramming it with
an airliner. However, the two events were not linked. The massive
release of radiation was in the scenario where the plant was under
military attack and was subjected to a sustained artillery barrage
that destroyed not only the containment vessel, but also caused
widespread damage to the safety, control and backup systems.

well yes, but frankly if its under that sort of attack, why not go the
whole hog and nuke the bloody thing. Or better, build an extremely dirty
bomb and detonate it at 5 miles up.

Greenpeace postulated that a terrorist group might, somehow, get hold of
a 15.5 cm artillery piece, camouflage it, sneak into range of the
reactor, then bombard it without interference. You can see why one of
their founders says they have lost the plot.

Where they go into the realms of Brent Spar is with the assertion that
this would result in a China Syndrome core meltdown, which did not
happen at either Three Mile Island or Fukushima. Of course, the report
was written in 2005, so they had no actual knowledge of what would
happen when a nuclear power plant lost all its backup systems.

China syndrome is simply not possible. Its a scare story fiction. Its a
bugger to get a reactor critical at all. The moment the fuel rods melt,
its even harder. However, thats why you have secondary containment. If
it does the crap drops into the collecting pot and smoulders there for a
few tens of years. like 3MI. In a few more tens of years 3MI will be a
useful source of fuel. There's no hurry. Its not going anywhere.

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All that
is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be decommissioned
with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Colin Bignell

On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.


Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...s-2310094.html
http://www.exeloncorp.com/powerplant...s/profile.aspx

Nice picture of a modern containment vessel base..
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...s-0406135.html

Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Jun 4, 9:26*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:









On Jun 4, 9:46 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:30:55 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
"VIENNA - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial
passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace

More lies spread by the greens to force their ****ty agenda down the craws of
mankind. Greenpeace, FoE and FIT parasites are by far the biggest threat to
life on earth, far bigger than any terrorist threat.

I'd zap them all in an electric chair powered by nuclear power, the sooner the
better as with useless wind turbines polluting our country we might run out of
surplus for this essential task.

--

So you resort to abuse when shown evidence you don't like?
Retard.

It's Greenpeace you retard. They don't do real facts just made up ones.

--

They collect facts you don't want to hear about. Allcanbe checked.

On Jun 5, 1:50*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:



There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. *Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.
The radioactive wreckage removed has still not been dealt with and is
in storage.
No-one knows what to do with it. Hundreds of tons.
Continuing costs for possibly hundreds of years.

On 05/06/2013 08:00, harry wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:26 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
....
It's Greenpeace you retard. They don't do real facts just made up ones.

--

They collect facts you don't want to hear about. All can be checked.

Like the 5,500 tonnes of oil they claimed was in Brent Spar. Even one of
their founders has disowned them.

Colin Bignell

On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:



There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

As compared to the $500 million the owners have invested in updating the
other reactor and associated plant.

Colin Bignell