http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

On 19/02/2014 10:05, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.


MPs can never resist "grandstanding" and occasionally they even get
slapped down for it. If you want a more dispassionate view, look at
National Audit Office reports.

On 19/02/2014 12:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel

lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

What has Sellafield to do with nuclear power?

Nothing, but to certain dim witted types with an agenda, anything with
the word "nuclear" in it is "all the same" and "bad". It saves having to
think, you just engage the reflex.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/02/2014 12:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel

lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

What has Sellafield to do with nuclear power?


It has nuclear in its description, something like ".. reprocessing
nuclear weapons waste..".
Some people are too thick to work out the difference between nuclear
weapons and nuclear power and mix them up.

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel
lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

What has Sellafield to do with nuclear power?

You don't know?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 19/02/2014 12:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel

lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

What has Sellafield to do with nuclear power?


It has nuclear in its description, something like ".. reprocessing nuclear
weapons waste..".
Some people are too thick to work out the difference between nuclear
weapons and nuclear power and mix them up.

You are well known to be one of the thickos Den.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafi...ocessing_plant

On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 19/02/2014 12:49, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel

lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

What has Sellafield to do with nuclear power?


It has nuclear in its description, something like ".. reprocessing nuclear
weapons waste..".
Some people are too thick to work out the difference between nuclear
weapons and nuclear power and mix them up.

You are well known to be one of the thickos Den.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafi...ocessing_plant


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel
lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

That is not the cost of nuclear power: it's the cost of today's
ultra-litigation-sensitive society, coupled with pusillanimous
politicians, from the great (Westminster) to the small (low-grade
managers in every large business in the country).

John

We really have not grasped the nettle about what to do with radioactive
stuff have we. I suspect in the main, the deep sea is maybe the safest as
long as you don't eat fish that live in the deep places that is.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

On 19/02/2014 20:35, Brian Gaff wrote:
We really have not grasped the nettle about what to do with radioactive
stuff have we. I suspect in the main, the deep sea is maybe the safest as
long as you don't eat fish that live in the deep places that is.

.... and don't mind that it is banned by international treaty.

The best way, at least for spent reactor fuel, would be to recycle it.
However, that is a relatively expensive answer.

Colin Bignell

On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity. In their equilibrium fuel
cycle, the fuel burnup was so high that the plutonium produced had the
wrong isotopic mix to be suitable for weapons. It has been claimed that
early in their operation, when some fuel is removed "early" to help
optimise the cycle, weapons grade plutonium could have been extracted
from this fuel. This is not easy to confirm because the same
reprocessing plant at Sellafield is used for both "civil" and "military"
fuel and details of its operation were therefore confidential. One of
the last CEGB chairmen (Glyn England) tried to investigate the true
history and he told staff on his "retirement" tour (after his contract
was not renewed by Tony Benn, as would have been the norm) that, so far
as he had been able to establish, no plutonium from the CEGB plant went
into weapons. England was a man of the utmost probity (I was always of
the opinion that the reason for his termination was that he did not
suffer fools gladly) and I am personally in little doubt that his
statement was correct.

On 19/02/14 20:35, Brian Gaff wrote:
We really have not grasped the nettle about what to do with radioactive
stuff have we. I suspect in the main, the deep sea is maybe the safest as
long as you don't eat fish that live in the deep places that is.
Brian


wee have grasped it, but the nambies run away when they see nettles
growing let alone touch one...

--
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 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the
purpose of the design and why we built them. Had we needed more
plutonium, the other reactors could have been adapted to make it, even
if we never actually did so.

Colin Bignell

On 19/02/14 23:22, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the
purpose of the design and why we built them. Had we needed more
plutonium, the other reactors could have been adapted to make it, even
if we never actually did so.

Colin Bignell

All uranium reactors make plutonium

Add a neutron to U-238 and you get Pu-239.

Some make more than others of course.

Pu-239 is an excellent reactor fuel and is being used up gradually in
conventional reactors, we probably have 20-50 years worth of 'free' fuel
stacked up at sellafield.



--
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 19/02/2014 15:54, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...MPs-attack-Sel
lafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

What has Sellafield to do with nuclear power?

You don't know?

We do know - much of the problematic materials, buildings etc. are such
a problem simply because they were the products of the weapons
programme, not a purely civil nuclear programme. No thought was put into
how things would be decommissioned, stored, cleaned up, etc., because
military requirements overrode all that.

Yes civil nuclear is a part of it, but even that was skewed by military
requirments.

SteveW

On 19/02/2014 23:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/02/14 23:22, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for
nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the
purpose of the design and why we built them. Had we needed more
plutonium, the other reactors could have been adapted to make it, even
if we never actually did so.


All uranium reactors make plutonium

Not all are designed for, or even capable of, making it in weapons grade
though.

Add a neutron to U-238 and you get Pu-239.

Some make more than others of course.

Pu-239 is an excellent reactor fuel and is being used up gradually in
conventional reactors, we probably have 20-50 years worth of 'free' fuel
stacked up at sellafield.

Don't tell Harry. That is all 'waste' to him.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not change
the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the purpose of
the design and why we built them. Had we needed more plutonium, the other
reactors could have been adapted to make it, even if we never actually did
so.


For the simple minded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/647981.stm?oo=0

Astonishing how thick some people here are.
Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants around the world as wellas our own
is processed here.
But not profitably as was envisaged.
In fact at a loss. Note the date.

Might as well read this report too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...6047.html?oo=0
Nuclear power.
Total balls up

And another one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...view.html?oo=0

Taxpayer picks up the tab again.

The true cost of nuclear power.
Pigeons are coming home to roost.

On 20/02/2014 08:23, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not change
the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the purpose of
the design and why we built them. Had we needed more plutonium, the other
reactors could have been adapted to make it, even if we never actually did
so.


For the simple minded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/647981.stm?oo=0

Which tells us that it is a business that contributed £12bn to our
balance of payments some 14 years ago.

Astonishing how thick some people here are.
Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants around the world as wellas our own
is processed here.

The only thicko here is the one who can't understand that reprocessing
means recycling and that the significant waste comes from the nuclear
weapons programme, not nuclear power.

But not profitably as was envisaged.
In fact at a loss. Note the date.

According to the 2012 Annual Report, Sellafield made a profit of £42
million, while the local population received £430 million in wages and
£81 million in pensions. That is quite a lot of income tax and,
according to the report, £40 million in national insurance contributions.

Might as well read this report too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...6047.html?oo=0
Nuclear power.
Total balls up

We obviously need more nuclear power stations to use the MOX fuel.

And another one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...view.html?oo=0

All that tells us is that the contract is coming up to a break point and
the government is doing exactly what it should do at a break point; it
is considering whether to continue with the existing contract, whether
to award it to another contractor or whether to take the place back
under government control.

Colin Bignell

On 20/02/2014 14:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:59:51 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:


[snip other ripostes to harry the thicko]

So all in all, harry is posting cock as usual. Why am I not surprised?

What surprises me is that nobody seems to have twigged that he's only
doing it to wind people up. I doubt he even reads the detail of the
items he links to.

He's proved either that or that his comprehension skills are severely
lacking many times, when an article he's linked to has very nicely
contradicted the point he was trying to make.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/02/2014 14:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:59:51 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:


[snip other ripostes to harry the thicko]

So all in all, harry is posting cock as usual. Why am I not surprised?

What surprises me is that nobody seems to have twigged that he's only
doing it to wind people up. I doubt he even reads the detail of the
items he links to.

I doubt anybody would turn their bungalow into an imitation of a WW2
blockhouse just to wind other people up. I think that, no matter how
misguidedly, he actually believes the stuff he posts. However, that
would mean that he either really doesn't understand the articles he
provides links to or just skip reads them and sees only the bits he
wants to.

ISTR he was some sort of advisor to the NHS. I dread to think how much
of their money he wasted if he showed a similar lack of rigour in his
research for that.

Colin Bignell

On 19/02/2014 23:22, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the
purpose of the design and why we built them. Had we needed more
plutonium, the other reactors could have been adapted to make it, even
if we never actually did so.

Colin Bignell

I would have to disagree, respectfully. The "civil" magnox stations were
built to produce electricity. This is why they had the considerable
expense and complication of on-load refuelling. By its nature, it is a
rather slow process and hence more suited to "long dwell" fuel. But it
had the merit of continuous electricity production. The military
reactors, on the other hand, had frequent "batch" refuelling with a
third of the fuel replaced each time. Continuity of power and steam
production was obtained by having four comparatively small units on each
site. The fact that on the later civil plant core, fuel, pressure
vessel, and boiler design was similar (apart from each time it was
changed!) simply reflects that a sound design had been developed for the
military plant.

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

On 20/02/2014 08:23, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for
nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards
were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change
the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the purpose
of
the design and why we built them. Had we needed more plutonium, the
other
reactors could have been adapted to make it, even if we never actually
did
so.

For the simple minded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/647981.stm?oo=0

Which tells us that it is a business that contributed £12bn to our
balance of payments some 14 years ago.

[snip other ripostes to harry the thicko]

So all in all, harry is posting cock as usual. Why am I not surprised?


I think it's you never read the articles.
It's telling us that the private sector has been fined for mismanagement and
the taxpayer is aving to take over as there is no money to be made.

There are people here that seem to to think Sellafield is purely about
nuclear weapons waste.
And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

On 20/02/2014 17:41, harryagain wrote:

And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

And exactly *how* do you work that out?

It becomes less radioactive as time goes by and most of the fission
products are less toxic.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

harryagain wrote:
"Tim wrote in message
.. .
In article_PadnRgzTcAMW5jOnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@giganews. com, Nightjar
wrote:

On 20/02/2014 08:23, harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for
nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards
were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change
the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the purpose
of
the design and why we built them. Had we needed more plutonium, the
other
reactors could have been adapted to make it, even if we never actually
did
so.

For the simple minded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/647981.stm?oo=0

Which tells us that it is a business that contributed £12bn to our
balance of payments some 14 years ago.

[snip other ripostes to harry the thicko]

So all in all, harry is posting cock as usual. Why am I not surprised?


I think it's you never read the articles.
It's telling us that the private sector has been fined for mismanagement and
the taxpayer is aving to take over as there is no money to be made.

There are people here that seem to to think Sellafield is purely about
nuclear weapons waste.
And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.



Harry, can't you get used to the idea that you are going to die anyway?
The chance of it being due to radiation is so small that it can be
ignored. The people living on granite are generally getting far larger
natural radiation doses than those living next to or working in nuclear
power stations. We don't see them whinging.

On 20/02/14 18:07, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/02/2014 17:41, harryagain wrote:

And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

And exactly *how* do you work that out?

It becomes less radioactive as time goes by and most of the fission
products are less toxic.


Harry is simply using the big Green Book of Agitprop..repeat a lie often
enough and some idiots will believe it.



--
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 20/02/14 19:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/14 18:07, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/02/2014 17:41, harryagain wrote:

And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

And exactly *how* do you work that out?

It becomes less radioactive as time goes by and most of the fission
products are less toxic.


Harry is simply using the big Green Book of Agitprop..repeat a lie often
enough and some idiots will believe it.



Also be aware of this when consulting wikipdeia

"William Connolley. "Green party activist" who "turned Wikipedia into
the missionary wing of the global warming movement." Between 2003 and
2009, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles,
caused another 500 articles he disapproved of the disappear, had more
than 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him blocked from
making further contributions, almost erased Wikipedia entries for the
Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, dissed skeptical
scientists like Fred Singer, and Richard Lindzen, and bigged up the work
of alarmists like Michael Mann......."

--
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 20/02/2014 19:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/14 18:07, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/02/2014 17:41, harryagain wrote:

And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

And exactly *how* do you work that out?

It becomes less radioactive as time goes by and most of the fission
products are less toxic.


Harry is simply using the big Green Book of Agitprop..repeat a lie often
enough and some idiots will believe it.




Well he knows it works.. it worked on him.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:05:26 +0000, harryagain wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n.../10629219/MPs-
attack-Sellafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

Yeah, 70bn is pretty big potatoes. Perhaps we could just ship all the
irradiated parts off to Pakistan, Bangladesh or Somalia and let them sort
it all out for us. I'll bet it wouldn't come to more than a few grand and
if they **** up, then it won't be us who have to suffer the resulting
contamination. ;-)

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2014 17:41, harryagain wrote:

And the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

And exactly *how* do you work that out?

It becomes less radioactive as time goes by and most of the fission
products are less toxic.

More fiction put about by the pro-nuclear lobby.
They want you to think the waste is all very safe, can be buried and just
disappears in ten years.
It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

harryagain wrote:

the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

Sure they have, sell several smoke alarms to every home :-)

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:05:26 +0000, harryagain wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n.../10629219/MPs-
attack-Sellafield-decommissioning-as-costs-hit-70bn.html

Easy to predict this one.
Except to certain thickos here.
Not even the start of it either.

Yeah, 70bn is pretty big potatoes. Perhaps we could just ship all the
irradiated parts off to Pakistan, Bangladesh or Somalia and let them sort
it all out for us. I'll bet it wouldn't come to more than a few grand and
if they **** up, then it won't be us who have to suffer the resulting
contamination. ;-)

Been thought of long since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_w..._%27Ndrangheta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Mongolia

On 21/02/2014 08:27, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

Sure they have, sell several smoke alarms to every home :-)


Butbut, you can't allow radioactive stuff in peoples' homes, they'll all
die of cancer!!!!

And to prove yet again that Harry doesn't read what he links to:-

"Even under the worst possible conditions the americium/plutonium
mixture will *never be as radioactive* as a spent-fuel dissolution
liquor, so it should be relatively straight forward to recover the
plutonium by PUREX or another aqueous reprocessing method."

From the paragraph linked to above. I added the emphasis.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 21/02/2014 09:43, John Williamson wrote:
On 21/02/2014 08:27, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

Sure they have, sell several smoke alarms to every home :-)


Butbut, you can't allow radioactive stuff in peoples' homes, they'll all
die of cancer!!!!

I have a source of radiation in my home at the moment - a half
kilogramme bag of shelled Brazil nuts.

And to prove yet again that Harry doesn't read what he links to:-

"Even under the worst possible conditions the americium/plutonium
mixture will *never be as radioactive* as a spent-fuel dissolution
liquor, so it should be relatively straight forward to recover the
plutonium by PUREX or another aqueous reprocessing method."

From the paragraph linked to above. I added the emphasis.

Sounds about right for a Harry quote.

Colin Bignell

On 21/02/2014 14:40, Nightjar wrote:
I have a source of radiation in my home at the moment - a half
kilogramme bag of shelled Brazil nuts.

Looks at bunch of bananas in fruit bowl CBA worrying

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2014 08:27, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

Sure they have, sell several smoke alarms to every home :-)


Butbut, you can't allow radioactive stuff in peoples' homes, they'll all
die of cancer!!!!


They ARE banned in many countries.


And to prove yet again that Harry doesn't read what he links to:-

"Even under the worst possible conditions the americium/plutonium mixture
will *never be as radioactive* as a spent-fuel dissolution liquor, so it
should be relatively straight forward to recover the plutonium by PUREX or
another aqueous reprocessing method."

From the paragraph linked to above. I added the emphasis.


The point is that without treatment it becomes more radioactive and more
expensive still to deal with.
Also note "should be ". = "up to".

So you can't just stash it away and forget it.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2014 08:23, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2014 21:06, newshound wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/02/2014 16:00, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message


Magnox reactors were designed and built to provide plutonium for
nuclear
weapons. The electricity was a by-product.

Colin Bignell

Let's just correct this one. The Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors
were built to produce plutonium and other material used in nuclear
weapons, with electricity (and, at Calder, steam) as welcome
by-products. The Magnox reactors from Berkeley and Bradwell onwards
were
designed and operated to produce electricity...

The fact that we did not produce plutonium at all of them does not
change
the fact that producing plutonium for nuclear weapons was the purpose of
the design and why we built them. Had we needed more plutonium, the
other
reactors could have been adapted to make it, even if we never actually
did
so.


For the simple minded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/647981.stm?oo=0

Which tells us that it is a business that contributed £12bn to our balance
of payments some 14 years ago.

Astonishing how thick some people here are.
Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants around the world as wellas our
own
is processed here.

The only thicko here is the one who can't understand that reprocessing
means recycling and that the significant waste comes from the nuclear
weapons programme, not nuclear power.

But not profitably as was envisaged.
In fact at a loss. Note the date.

According to the 2012 Annual Report, Sellafield made a profit of £42
million, while the local population received £430 million in wages and £81
million in pensions. That is quite a lot of income tax and, according to
the report, £40 million in national insurance contributions.

Might as well read this report too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...6047.html?oo=0
Nuclear power.
Total balls up

We obviously need more nuclear power stations to use the MOX fuel.


The MOX fuel consists only of a tiny percentage of plutonium.

On 22/02/2014 10:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2014 08:27, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

Sure they have, sell several smoke alarms to every home :-)


Butbut, you can't allow radioactive stuff in peoples' homes, they'll
all die of cancer!!!!

They ARE banned in many countries.

So no bananas, then, no brazil nuts, and no coal - for openers. Is that
what you are saying?

No people either. On average, we emit about 500 gamma rays every second.

Colin Bignell

On 22/02/2014 09:42, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2014 08:23, harryagain wrote:
...
Might as well read this report too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...6047.html?oo=0
Nuclear power.
Total balls up

We obviously need more nuclear power stations to use the MOX fuel.


The MOX fuel consists only of a tiny percentage of plutonium.


So, we need a LOT more nuclear power stations.

Colin Bignell

On 22/02/2014 09:42, harryagain wrote:

The MOX fuel consists only of a tiny percentage of plutonium.


Between 5 and 10 percent, which isn't "tiny".

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 22/02/2014 10:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2014 08:27, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

the longer they keep plutonium, the more dangerous it becomes.

It actually decays into even more dangerous and hard to handle stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel#Americium_content

And no-one has come up with any solutions so far.

Sure they have, sell several smoke alarms to every home :-)


Butbut, you can't allow radioactive stuff in peoples' homes, they'll
all die of cancer!!!!

They ARE banned in many countries.

So no bananas, then, no brazil nuts, and no coal - for openers. Is that
what you are saying?

No people either. On average, we emit about 500 gamma rays every second.

Colin Bignell

Bloody hell Should I wrap up the missus in tin foil or sheet lead or
something?
--
bert