https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-vote-turmoil

Seems like Brexit may derail the Hinkley Point Nuclear project.
At least, that's the excuse they're giving.
The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.
It's dawning on the frogs the extent of the problem they have.
I 'spect the French unions will have the last word. (That's the way things are run in France).

I 'spect Brexit will be blamed for ever bad thing that happens for ten years at least.

But think, TurNiP has contributed to the demise of nuclear power!
Ha! Ha!

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

On 02/07/16 17:33, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

There are no issues. Only more Project Fear


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

No worries about the turkey not being cooked at Crimbles gentlemen!

Anyone for wind farming?

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/electricity...uropean-market

AB

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 02/07/16 19:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

You are just lying again - you've been told before that this is a
solved problem.

Harry's lying is an unsolved problem Tim.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/07/16 19:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

You are just lying again - you've been told before that this is a
solved problem.

Harry's lying is an unsolved problem Tim.


Yes its nice to see the "A" team back in action again, doing what they do best.

Ganging up on somebody smaller than themselves. As they'll already have
killfilled everybody else.

The only real problem with this particular "dynamic duo" Turnip and Timmy
is who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey ?


michael adams

....

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 20:07:47 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/07/16 19:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

You are just lying again - you've been told before that this is a
solved problem.

Harry's lying is an unsolved problem Tim.


Yes its nice to see the "A" team back in action again, doing what they do best.

They love it when a plan comes together (as long as it is theirs and
doesn't fall apart too quickly). ;-)

Ganging up on somebody smaller than themselves.

That comes from being a 'cold and prickly'. The inability to see
things as others do.

As they'll already have
killfilled everybody else.

I don't think Tim has that many (or any) killfiled? TNP's sort of
killfiling is a bit sad really. Ignoring all his bluster I think he's
just insecure and it's his only way of dealing with it. ;-(

The only real problem with this particular "dynamic duo" Turnip and Timmy
is who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey ?

;-) At least Tim has the balls to have a 'discussion' in this
discussion group and can (sometimes) admit when he is wrong.

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 19:35:53 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 19:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

You are just lying again - you've been told before that this is a
solved problem.

Harry's lying is an unsolved problem Tim.

I have predicted the demise of Hinkley point reactor for years.
All coming true.
TurNiP doesn't like to be proved wrong.

http://www.stophinkley.org/StopPress.htm

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/...hinkley-point/

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.

Or the cost.

Except it's demonstrably cheaper than wind?

On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

On 03/07/16 09:23, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 19:35:53 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 19:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

You are just lying again - you've been told before that this is a
solved problem.

Harry's lying is an unsolved problem Tim.

I have predicted the demise of Hinkley point reactor for years.
All coming true.
TurNiP doesn't like to be proved wrong.

http://www.stophinkley.org/StopPress.htm

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/...hinkley-point/

Well, you may like to view this HARDalk interview broadcast 30 June with
the French energy minister Ségolène Royal:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...nment-minister

The Hinckley Point issue is discussed (starts around 10.00), and at
10.45 Ségolène Royal specifically refutes the suggestion made by Paul
Dorfman.

I had never heard of HARDtalk or the interviewer Stephen Sackur. I must
say I found his technique very clear and easy to follow. I wish the BBC
would put him on at a sensible hour!

--

Jeff

On Monday, 4 July 2016 06:27:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

You're arguing against ascertainable fact, Harry. That takes some
serious self confidence and / or cocaine.

On Monday, 4 July 2016 23:03:17 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 06:27:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

You're arguing against ascertainable fact, Harry. That takes some
serious self confidence and / or cocaine.

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 4 July 2016 23:03:17 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 06:27:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

You're arguing against ascertainable fact, Harry. That takes some
serious self confidence and / or cocaine.

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

They dont do that so the used fuel can be reprocessed you pig ignorant
clown.
**** all of the uranium is actually consumed, it would be stupid to throw it
away.

On 05/07/2016 06:13, harry wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 23:03:17 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 06:27:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

You're arguing against ascertainable fact, Harry. That takes some
serious self confidence and / or cocaine.

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.


Well there is harry's "you can't do it" trick, *permanent*, he knows
full well there haven't been enough half-lives to call it permanent yet.
Not that it isn't permanent but because you have to store some of it for
a few decades before getting rid of it.

There is nothing more profane than the image of an atheist with tears
in his eyes conducting the glory and passion of Handel's Messiah.
Franky Schaeffer

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 08:28:47 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/07/2016 06:13, harry wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 23:03:17 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 06:27:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

You're arguing against ascertainable fact, Harry. That takes some
serious self confidence and / or cocaine.

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.


Well there is harry's "you can't do it" trick, *permanent*, he knows
full well there haven't been enough half-lives to call it permanent yet.
Not that it isn't permanent but because you have to store some of it for
a few decades before getting rid of it.

Getting rid of it?????

Still no answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-l...ste_management

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 08:28:47 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/07/2016 06:13, harry wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 23:03:17 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 06:27:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:03:40 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:08:40 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.

Except they do.


No they don't.
Or they would be doing it.
And they aren't.

You're arguing against ascertainable fact, Harry. That takes some
serious self confidence and / or cocaine.

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.


Well there is harry's "you can't do it" trick, *permanent*, he knows
full well there haven't been enough half-lives to call it permanent yet.
Not that it isn't permanent but because you have to store some of it for
a few decades before getting rid of it.

Getting rid of it?????

Still no answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-l...ste_management

More lies. Its always been possible to reprocess it into
new nuke fuel and to consume it in breeders too.

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:12:11 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

I suggest YOU read it.
The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5] This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[8]

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:12:11 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

I suggest YOU read it.
The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate
public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Wrong with reprocessing and breeders.

Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste
management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic
placement, although there has been limited progress toward
implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5]

Because it makes a lot more sense to reprocess the
used fuel because **** all of it has been consumed.

This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing
with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[8]

Pity that return those to where it came from is no worse than when it was
dug up.

On 06/07/2016 07:24, harry wrote:

This is
partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with
radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation
doses.[8]



How many times do you have to be told that if the half life is millions
of years its not radioactive enough to matter.

The radioactive carbon in your body has a half life of under 6000 years
so why isn't everyone dead? How do we dispose of your body to protect us
from the radioactivity in your body? Come to think of it is there enough
lead in your house walls so none of the radiation you emit escapes?

You do understand that there is not significant difference between the
radiation coming from you and that from nuclear waste?

Maybe you should be scared of yourself?

In article . com,
lid writes
On 06/07/2016 07:24, harry wrote:

This is
partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with
radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation
doses.[8]



How many times do you have to be told that if the half life is millions
of years its not radioactive enough to matter.

The radioactive carbon in your body has a half life of under 6000 years
so why isn't everyone dead? How do we dispose of your body to protect
us from the radioactivity in your body? Come to think of it is there
enough lead in your house walls so none of the radiation you emit
escapes?

You do understand that there is not significant difference between the
radiation coming from you and that from nuclear waste?

Maybe you should be scared of yourself?
Or disposed of up his own arse.
--
bert

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 13:06:57 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/07/2016 07:24, harry wrote:

This is
partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with
radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation
doses.[8]



How many times do you have to be told that if the half life is millions
of years its not radioactive enough to matter.

The radioactive carbon in your body has a half life of under 6000 years
so why isn't everyone dead? How do we dispose of your body to protect us
from the radioactivity in your body? Come to think of it is there enough
lead in your house walls so none of the radiation you emit escapes?

You do understand that there is not significant difference between the
radiation coming from you and that from nuclear waste?

Maybe you should be scared of yourself?

Den as with everything else, you talk total drivel.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:00:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:12:11 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

I suggest YOU read it.
The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate
public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Wrong with reprocessing and breeders.

Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste
management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic
placement, although there has been limited progress toward
implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5]

Because it makes a lot more sense to reprocess the
used fuel because **** all of it has been consumed.

This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing
with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[8]

Pity that return those to where it came from is no worse than when it was
dug up.

Burying it safely is a thousand times more difficult than digging it up

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:00:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:12:11 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

I suggest YOU read it.
The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate
public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Wrong with reprocessing and breeders.

Which breeders?
And what happens to the waste after reprocessing?


Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste
management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic
placement, although there has been limited progress toward
implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5]

Because it makes a lot more sense to reprocess the
used fuel because **** all of it has been consumed.

This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing
with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[8]

Pity that return those to where it came from is no worse than when it was
dug up.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 07:24:49 UTC+1, harry wrote:

I suggest YOU read it.

Yes, indeed.

The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Harry, that is literally the opposite of what is on that page. It
lists currently used methods.


Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5] This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[8]

So because an industry which has years, if not decades, to wait
before anything has to be done is taking its time, you condsider
that proof that "we don't know what to do"?

Your blind prejudice is laughable.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 20:32:23 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 07:24:49 UTC+1, harry wrote:

I suggest YOU read it.

Yes, indeed.

The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Harry, that is literally the opposite of what is on that page. It
lists currently used methods.


Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5] This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[8]

So because an industry which has years, if not decades, to wait
before anything has to be done is taking its time, you condsider
that proof that "we don't know what to do"?

Your blind prejudice is laughable.

Bollix.
They are "considering."
So where is the action after seventy years?
No effective action because they haven't a clue.

It's called "kick the problem into the longer grass" syndrome.
I see you suffer from it too.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 20:44:50 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Bollix.
They are "considering."
So where is the action after seventy years?
No effective action because they haven't a clue.

You keep saying this, but repetition doesn't make it true.

It's called "kick the problem into the longer grass" syndrome.

Is it? Tell me about Yucca Mountain, Harry. I've left that as an
open question deliberately because it's going to be interesting
to see which of your prejudices come out in what order.

I see you suffer from it too.

Please support your claim.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:00:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:12:11 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

I suggest YOU read it.
The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate
public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Wrong with reprocessing and breeders.

Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste
management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic
placement, although there has been limited progress toward
implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5]

Because it makes a lot more sense to reprocess the
used fuel because **** all of it has been consumed.

This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing
with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation
doses.[8]

Pity that return those to where it came from is no worse than when it was
dug up.

Burying it safely is a thousand times more difficult than digging it up

Even sillier and more pig ignorant that you usually manage.

All you have to do is chuck it back in the hole it originally
came out of and cover it with what you took off to get at it.

MUCH easier to do than digging it out in the first place.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:00:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:12:11 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 06:13:10 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Show me a successful, completed, working permanent disposal method.

You demonstrate through your comments and demands that you don't
know enough about the subject to either comment on or ask for
reasoned explanations about the subject. Your ignorance, fear,
and prejudice are shouting loud and clear.

The saddest thing is that you point to a wikipedia page as
evidence that no one knows what to do with it, yet your
selective reading of that particular page completely ignores the
many ways detailed.

So, Harry, I would like YOU to explain why YOU think no one knows
what to do with it.

I suggest YOU read it.
The "detailed " methods are all theories and sop put out ameliorate
public opinion. None have been successfully put into practice.

Wrong with reprocessing and breeders.

Which breeders?

The ones they have built.

And what happens to the waste after reprocessing?

You shove it in a breeder and get rid of it that way.

Quote from the Wiki:-
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste
management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic
placement, although there has been limited progress toward
implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5]

Because it makes a lot more sense to reprocess the
used fuel because **** all of it has been consumed.

This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing
with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]
according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation
doses.[8]

Pity that return those to where it came from is no worse than when it was
dug up.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

All you have to do is chuck it back in the hole it originally
came out of and cover it with what you took off to get at it.

Ah right.

Take it back to these top secret plutonium mines, that never appear on maps.

It's all so simple when you explain it like that.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

All you have to do is chuck it back in the hole it originally
came out of and cover it with what you took off to get at it.

Ah right.

Take it back to these top secret plutonium mines, that never appear on
maps.

What was being discussed was the millions of years half life stuff, ****wit.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 20:53:17 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 20:44:50 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Bollix.
They are "considering."
So where is the action after seventy years?
No effective action because they haven't a clue.

You keep saying this, but repetition doesn't make it true.

It's called "kick the problem into the longer grass" syndrome.

Is it? Tell me about Yucca Mountain, Harry. I've left that as an
open question deliberately because it's going to be interesting
to see which of your prejudices come out in what order.

I see you suffer from it too.

Please support your claim.

One of several failed attempts.
None have succeeded.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/...-nuclear-waste

http://www1.american.edu/TED/NKORNUKE.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...565_story.html

http://www.yuccamountain.org/time.htm

http://www.google.com/patents/US4738564


Try to keep up instead of posting drivel propaganda.

In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

I think there might be a 'problem' if a nuclear power station had
'issues'.
--
Ian

On 07/07/16 08:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

I think there might be a 'problem' if a nuclear power station had 'issues'.

Nuclear power stations don't have minds.
So they cant have 'issues'



--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 07/07/16 08:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

I think there might be a 'problem' if a nuclear power station had 'issues'.

Nuclear power stations don't have minds.
So they cant have 'issues'

Something being 'issued' by a power station might certainly indicate a
'problem'.




--
Ian

On 07/07/16 09:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 07/07/16 08:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:33:04 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:34:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The real reason the the economics/nuclear waste issue of course.

What issues?

The issue that no-one knows how to deal with it.
Or the cost.

I think there might be a 'problem' if a nuclear power station had
'issues'.

Nuclear power stations don't have minds.
So they cant have 'issues'

Something being 'issued' by a power station might certainly indicate a
'problem'.
Well yes, lots of electricity is certainly a problem for the greens

I mean, you don't expect power stations to generate electricity reliably
do you?

Windmills don't!
Solar Panels don't!







--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 09:07:19 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well yes, lots of electricity is certainly a problem for the greens

I mean, you don't expect power stations to generate electricity reliably
do you?

Windmills don't!
Solar Panels don't!

I recently saw a parking meter with built-in solar panel on top, next to a street light. Thinking the angles didn't seem to add up, I noted where the sun would be at noon, and saw the panel was tilted in entirely the wrong direction.


NT