Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980


All part of the current assault on anything that makes electricity.

Except windmills. But they don't make electricity either.



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

Karl Marx

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 12:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.

Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980


All part of the current assault on anything that makes electricity.


Was there anything of substance in the programme or was it one of
those where upon discovering a disused bog with a leaking cistern in
some no longer used corner makes out we are all going to die?


G.Harman

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 12:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.

Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980


All part of the current assault on anything that makes electricity.


Was there anything of substance in the programme or was it one of
those where upon discovering a disused bog with a leaking cistern in
some no longer used corner makes out we are all going to die?

It's just a tad worse than that.
Give it a watch.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

En el artículo , damduck-
escribió:

Was there anything of substance in the programme

Yes, quite a bit, but the programme wasn't helped by the idiot presenter
going into full-on John Humphreys attack dog mode, nor by the series of
unconvincing chinless wonders trotted out to defend Sellafield and the
American conglomerate contracted to run it (who were sacked in April
this year).

The programme would have had more impact if it had been more even-handed
and not presented in the usual "it's noocular = we're all doomed!
DOOOMED!!" tone.

To be fair to Sellafield, they're still dealing with the legacy of the
first forays into nuclear reactors in the 50s - there were several shots
of the one remaining Windscale Pile, with Cockroft's Folly at the top.

or was it one of
those where upon discovering a disused bog with a leaking cistern in
some no longer used corner makes out we are all going to die?

A little more worrying than that. They're got deteriorating concrete
silos full of waste built in the 50s which were only ever intended to be
temporary. Plans were laid to clear them using a robotic arm and
repackage the waste at a cost of £200 mill, but were abandoned. The
chinless wonders were rather evasive when asked what the current plans
for the silos are.

The main concern seems to be the open storage ponds built in the 50s in
which waste is kept under water. Much of it has corroded into a toxic
sludge at the bottom and by the sounds of what the Sellafield people
themselves said, the ponds have "hundreds" of cracks, some of which are
leaking radioactive liquor.

The programme was basically a scaremongering hatchet job and would have
reflected much better on the BBC if it had been presented in a calmer
and more even-handed manner.

To be sure, old Jim al-Khalili won't be getting an invite any time soon
to film "Inside Sellafield II".

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 13:48, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The main concern seems to be the open storage ponds built in the 50s in
which waste is kept under water. Much of it has corroded into a toxic
sludge at the bottom and by the sounds of what the Sellafield people
themselves said, the ponds have "hundreds" of cracks, some of which are
leaking radioactive liquor.

This is all old news.

as far back as the 1970s a friend of mine how was a bit green, and wet
behind the eras build a geiger counter and being of independent means
wandered all over the UK with it.

No leaks of any sort from any nuclear power station, but the beaches
downstream of Sellafield were a bit warm. Nothing like as bad as
Dartmoor of course...but detectable.



The programme was basically a scaremongering hatchet job and would have
reflected much better on the BBC if it had been presented in a calmer
and more even-handed manner.

Well don't hold your breath,.

You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of renewable
energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into nuclear and
fracking so they have no other options.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.



Or have they?

The problem is, I cannot just nonce into Sellafield to check (well, not
past the Visitor Centre and coach tour (do they still do that?).

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:48, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The main concern seems to be the open storage ponds built in the 50s in
which waste is kept under water. Much of it has corroded into a toxic
sludge at the bottom and by the sounds of what the Sellafield people
themselves said, the ponds have "hundreds" of cracks, some of which are
leaking radioactive liquor.

This is all old news.

as far back as the 1970s a friend of mine how was a bit green, and wet
behind the eras build a geiger counter and being of independent means
wandered all over the UK with it.

No leaks of any sort from any nuclear power station, but the beaches
downstream of Sellafield were a bit warm. Nothing like as bad as
Dartmoor of course...but detectable.



The programme was basically a scaremongering hatchet job and would have
reflected much better on the BBC if it had been presented in a calmer
and more even-handed manner.

Well don't hold your breath,.

You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of renewable
energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into nuclear and
fracking so they have no other options.


I think one of the worst things that Cameron did pre-Brexit was to force
Whittingdale to guarantee the BBC another decade of unaccountability.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of renewable
energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into nuclear and
fracking so they have no other options.


I think one of the worst things that Cameron did pre-Brexit was to force
Whittingdale to guarantee the BBC another decade of unaccountability.

Absolutely. They should stick to 'Strictly' and other such bits of froth.
Except of course ITV and that pal of the Tories, Murdoch, don't want that
competition either.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of renewable
energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into nuclear and
fracking so they have no other options.


I think one of the worst things that Cameron did pre-Brexit was to force
Whittingdale to guarantee the BBC another decade of unaccountability.

Absolutely. They should stick to 'Strictly' and other such bits of froth.
Except of course ITV and that pal of the Tories, Murdoch, don't want that
competition either.


The likes of 'Strictly' etc. is why I stopped paying the licence fee in
the first place :-) And since I'm not prepared to pay for the BBC's
nonsense, I'm also not allowed to watch ITV anyway. But I don't miss
any of it - I can't stand adverts.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of
renewable energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into
nuclear and fracking so they have no other options.


I think one of the worst things that Cameron did pre-Brexit was to
force Whittingdale to guarantee the BBC another decade of
unaccountability.

Absolutely. They should stick to 'Strictly' and other such bits of
froth. Except of course ITV and that pal of the Tories, Murdoch, don't
want that competition either.


The likes of 'Strictly' etc. is why I stopped paying the licence fee in
the first place :-) And since I'm not prepared to pay for the BBC's
nonsense, I'm also not allowed to watch ITV anyway. But I don't miss
any of it - I can't stand adverts.

If you don't watch TV why moan about any of it? Especially commenting on
something you've not even seen.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
We watch almost everything via torrents and NZBs. (1) because we can, (2)
because we can't be arsed with a gazillion subscriptions which have been
artificially engineered* just to watch a couple of good programmes and
(3) due to various arcane reasons, even with subscriptions, there's stuff
you can't get legally, but can illegally. Case in hand : "Dance with a
Stranger". Not available to stream in the UK.

Even stuff that wouldn't need torrents gets torrented, as it's much
easier than going onto iPlayer to discover the program we wanted to watch
is "No longer available".

Funnily enough we do pay the licence fee. BBC4/R4 are worth it alone
(which doesn't say much for BBC1/2 et al).

True. It's when you look at the alternatives you realise how good value
our licence scheme is.

--
*PMS jokes aren't funny; period.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 05/09/2016 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.

After the over-the-top, over-dramatic presentation I wouldn't blame them.

--
F

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of
renewable energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into
nuclear and fracking so they have no other options.


I think one of the worst things that Cameron did pre-Brexit was to
force Whittingdale to guarantee the BBC another decade of
unaccountability.

Absolutely. They should stick to 'Strictly' and other such bits of
froth. Except of course ITV and that pal of the Tories, Murdoch, don't
want that competition either.


The likes of 'Strictly' etc. is why I stopped paying the licence fee in
the first place :-) And since I'm not prepared to pay for the BBC's
nonsense, I'm also not allowed to watch ITV anyway. But I don't miss
any of it - I can't stand adverts.

If you don't watch TV why moan about any of it? Especially commenting on
something you've not even seen.


I'm just a moaner, I guess. I remember a time when the BBC didn't make
me want to throw the telly out of the window. If they stopped trying to
make political points at every available opportunity, I'd be happy to
start paying again; but right now, it's just tiresome being told that,
as a straight white western male, I'm responsible for just about all the
evils on the planet. Perhaps I'm taking it too personally.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
You know what's going down. New government, very skeptical of
renewable energy and climate change, so let's put the boot into
nuclear and fracking so they have no other options.


I think one of the worst things that Cameron did pre-Brexit was to
force Whittingdale to guarantee the BBC another decade of
unaccountability.

Absolutely. They should stick to 'Strictly' and other such bits of
froth. Except of course ITV and that pal of the Tories, Murdoch, don't
want that competition either.


The likes of 'Strictly' etc. is why I stopped paying the licence fee in
the first place :-) And since I'm not prepared to pay for the BBC's
nonsense, I'm also not allowed to watch ITV anyway. But I don't miss
any of it - I can't stand adverts.

If you don't watch TV why moan about any of it? Especially commenting on
something you've not even seen.

What does liking "strictly" signify?
a/. I'm an old fart
b/. I'm a misguided dumbarse
c/. Both

I can't wait for it to come around :D
I also used to like Clarksons antics but i'm damned if i'll pay Amazon for
it.

That "newzoids" is quite good, guy knocks on a door, out comes Chris Evans,
guy says you've been involved in a car crash?
Evans says no, guy says but you just hosted top gear?

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 14:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a
****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.



Or have they?

The problem is, I cannot just nonce into Sellafield to check (well, not
past the Visitor Centre and coach tour (do they still do that?).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...y-0609165.html

Totally refute the whole program. The Beeb did a hatchet job basically.
I hope they sue em.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 16:33, Jethro_uk wrote:
Funnily enough we do pay the licence fee. BBC4/R4 are worth it alone
(which doesn't say much for BBC1/2 et al).


Now that F1 has gone to CH4, apart from the odd quiz or documentary, and
TMS, I cant find a single thing worth watching or listening to on the
beeb. I've even given up R2 when driving and settled for a relaxed
classic FM.

Its just like listening to the old SABC. Wall to wall propaganda that
ignores reality and opinion geared to a narrow set of people I simply
don't belong to.




--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 17:19, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
s a straight white western male, I'm responsible for just about all the
evils on the planet. Perhaps I'm taking it too personally.

Become a masculinist.

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 14:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a
****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.



Or have they?

The problem is, I cannot just nonce into Sellafield to check (well, not
past the Visitor Centre and coach tour (do they still do that?).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...y-0609165.html


Totally refute the whole program. The Beeb did a hatchet job basically.
I hope they sue em.


They have not really refuted the BBC's claims. They just issued a
blanket "it's ********" statement. Which is exactly what a company who's
been caught out would do.

Of course, the BBC would also probably put a political spin on this.

So it's hard to know who's right.

Sellafield need to refute the BBC point by point with evidence, if they
are to be believed.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 9/6/2016 1:48 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , damduck-
escribió:

Was there anything of substance in the programme

Yes, quite a bit, but the programme wasn't helped by the idiot presenter
going into full-on John Humphreys attack dog mode, nor by the series of
unconvincing chinless wonders trotted out to defend Sellafield and the
American conglomerate contracted to run it (who were sacked in April
this year).

The programme would have had more impact if it had been more even-handed
and not presented in the usual "it's noocular = we're all doomed!
DOOOMED!!" tone.

To be fair to Sellafield, they're still dealing with the legacy of the
first forays into nuclear reactors in the 50s - there were several shots
of the one remaining Windscale Pile, with Cockroft's Folly at the top.

or was it one of
those where upon discovering a disused bog with a leaking cistern in
some no longer used corner makes out we are all going to die?

A little more worrying than that. They're got deteriorating concrete
silos full of waste built in the 50s which were only ever intended to be
temporary. Plans were laid to clear them using a robotic arm and
repackage the waste at a cost of £200 mill, but were abandoned. The
chinless wonders were rather evasive when asked what the current plans
for the silos are.

The main concern seems to be the open storage ponds built in the 50s in
which waste is kept under water. Much of it has corroded into a toxic
sludge at the bottom and by the sounds of what the Sellafield people
themselves said, the ponds have "hundreds" of cracks, some of which are
leaking radioactive liquor.

The programme was basically a scaremongering hatchet job and would have
reflected much better on the BBC if it had been presented in a calmer
and more even-handed manner.

To be sure, old Jim al-Khalili won't be getting an invite any time soon
to film "Inside Sellafield II".

That's not a bad summary at all, although being from the Nuclear
industry myself I think you are talking up some of the issues a bit more
than they deserve. I agree with you that the standard of journalism was
pretty awful.

As you say, there is a lot of legacy plant some of which looks, as you
might expect, like a closed 50 year old steelworks.

One of the reasons I'd be as happy as that the senior plant manager to
live within a couple of miles is that the site activities are monitored
by the Office of the Nuclear Regulator (ONR). Take it from me, they
employ some of the smartest people in the industry. Whilst the open
storage pond you mentioned looks pretty awful, it is not the riskiest
part of the plant. As they said, it is a complex and busy site with both
"reprocessing" and "decommissioning" work going on, and the right way to
run it is to tackle the most important problems first.

As usual, the program kept saying it's the worst place in the world, but
there have been some nasty issues with the storage facilities at Hanford
in the USA, and by all accounts some of the Russian sites are even worse.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 9/6/2016 7:10 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 14:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a
****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.



Or have they?

The problem is, I cannot just nonce into Sellafield to check (well, not
past the Visitor Centre and coach tour (do they still do that?).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...y-0609165.html



Totally refute the whole program. The Beeb did a hatchet job basically.
I hope they sue em.


They have not really refuted the BBC's claims. They just issued a
blanket "it's ********" statement. Which is exactly what a company who's
been caught out would do.

Of course, the BBC would also probably put a political spin on this.

So it's hard to know who's right.

Is it? Don't you believe the ONR?

In a separate statement, the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
said, "A considerable amount of work is still required to clean up out
of date facilities at Sellafield and decommission their older plants.
But this does not mean they pose an immediate safety risk to workers or
the public."
The ONR said it has seen "significant progress" at Sellafield in recent
years. It added, "If we considered any plant to be unsafe we would shut
it down or demand action to reduce that risk and return it to safety."


Sellafield need to refute the BBC point by point with evidence, if they
are to be believed.

Can't do it. The trouble is, it might take half an hour properly to
refute a claim which can be made in 30 seconds. And then you challenge
some new detail.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

En el artículo . com,
bm escribió:

I also used to like Clarksons antics but i'm damned if i'll pay Amazon for
it.

It'll be all over the torrent sites seconds after broadcast. Looking
forward to seeing what it's like and how many times they take the ****
out of the ginger ****.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

by all accounts some of the Russian sites are even worse.

Oh yes, Chernobyl, Mayak, Lake Karachay, and there's a nuclear dump
somewhere on the Arctic Circle (Archangel?) where they scuttle their
nuke subs.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

I'm just a moaner, I guess. I remember a time when the BBC didn't make
me want to throw the telly out of the window. If they stopped trying to
make political points at every available opportunity, I'd be happy to
start paying again; but right now, it's just tiresome being told that,
as a straight white western male, I'm responsible for just about all the
evils on the planet. Perhaps I'm taking it too personally.

On the Beeb this morning.
Most "refugee children" are male and 16-17 years old.
(Exactly theright age to be trouble!).

"Young offenders" in the the UK can't be properly dealt with/looked after.

Note the difference in terminology. Just trying to brainwash us.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

The ONR said it has seen "significant progress" at Sellafield in recent
years. It added, "If we considered any plant to be unsafe we would shut
it down or demand action to reduce that risk and return it to safety."


Sellafield need to refute the BBC point by point with evidence, if they
are to be believed.

Can't do it. The trouble is, it might take half an hour properly to
refute a claim which can be made in 30 seconds. And then you challenge
some new detail.

"Shut it down"???
How would they do that?
They lie as do es everyone with links to the nuclear industry.
Their careers/jobs depend on it.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 18:17:53 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 14:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a
****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.



Or have they?

The problem is, I cannot just nonce into Sellafield to check (well, not
past the Visitor Centre and coach tour (do they still do that?).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...y-0609165.html

Totally refute the whole program. The Beeb did a hatchet job basically.
I hope they sue em.

They've been refuting stuff for years that turned out to be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellaf..._controversies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...th-cancer.html

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 17:02:33 UTC+1, F wrote:
On 05/09/2016 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a ****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.

After the over-the-top, over-dramatic presentation I wouldn't blame them.

--
F

How do YUO know it's over the top?

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/16 23:43, newshound wrote:
On 9/6/2016 7:10 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 14:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:49, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/09/16 12:15, bm wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/16 21:31, bm wrote:
Looks like another bunch of overpaid, thick-skinned, don't give a
****
*******.
I'm just amazed they let in the BBC.



Care to summarise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37255980



Thanks.

I am not surprised and yes, it is worrying. It's just has that
appallingly "British Leyland half-arsed" feel to it.

Of course, The BBC carefully crafted it to give that impression.



Or have they?

The problem is, I cannot just nonce into Sellafield to check (well, not
past the Visitor Centre and coach tour (do they still do that?).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...y-0609165.html




Totally refute the whole program. The Beeb did a hatchet job basically.
I hope they sue em.


They have not really refuted the BBC's claims. They just issued a
blanket "it's ********" statement. Which is exactly what a company who's
been caught out would do.

Of course, the BBC would also probably put a political spin on this.

So it's hard to know who's right.

Is it? Don't you believe the ONR?

In a separate statement, the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
said, "A considerable amount of work is still required to clean up out
of date facilities at Sellafield and decommission their older plants.
But this does not mean they pose an immediate safety risk to workers or
the public."
The ONR said it has seen "significant progress" at Sellafield in recent
years. It added, "If we considered any plant to be unsafe we would shut
it down or demand action to reduce that risk and return it to safety."

In that case, I am happy - and stuff the BBC.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 07/09/16 08:18, Tim Watts wrote:

In that case, I am happy - and stuff the BBC.


In my lifetime, I have never been more aware and more scared, frankly,
of the level of propaganda being thrown at the British public. It is
almost war status in its blatant urgency.




--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 07/09/16 09:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

As usual, the program kept saying it's the worst place in the world,
but there have been some nasty issues with the storage facilities at
Hanford in the USA, and by all accounts some of the Russian sites are
even worse.

IIRC, one of the Russian sites was so bad that serious fission was
going on.

AS opposed to humorous fission?

The whole point of storing spent fuel rods in ponds is because fission
is going on.



Then of course there's the nuclear graveyard with a number of
Rooshian nuclear subs abandoned and off their north coast somewhere.
Perhaps the BBC will do a film on the Russian sites next.


Haha.

Mind you, even if the stuff is in corroding ponds, doesn't mean it will
get out and pollute everywhere. Look at the waste at the Oklo site, in
Gabon. Since it was created at the reactor site there, some 2 billion
years ago, it's hardly moved at all.

Exactly.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 06/09/2016 14:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/09/16 13:48, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The main concern seems to be the open storage ponds built in the 50s in
which waste is kept under water. Much of it has corroded into a toxic
sludge at the bottom and by the sounds of what the Sellafield people
themselves said, the ponds have "hundreds" of cracks, some of which are
leaking radioactive liquor.

This is all old news.

as far back as the 1970s a friend of mine how was a bit green, and wet
behind the eras build a geiger counter and being of independent means
wandered all over the UK with it.

No leaks of any sort from any nuclear power station, but the beaches
downstream of Sellafield were a bit warm. Nothing like as bad as
Dartmoor of course...but detectable.

Geiger Muller tubes aren't very good at detecting radiation, gamma yes,
beta some of it, alpha nothing.

You need something a bit better to detect all the problem stuff.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/09/16 08:18, Tim Watts wrote:

In that case, I am happy - and stuff the BBC.


In my lifetime, I have never been more aware and more scared, frankly,
of the level of propaganda being thrown at the British public. It is
almost war status in its blatant urgency.




Agreed.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 07/09/16 10:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 07/09/16 09:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

As usual, the program kept saying it's the worst place in the world,
but there have been some nasty issues with the storage facilities at
Hanford in the USA, and by all accounts some of the Russian sites are
even worse.

IIRC, one of the Russian sites was so bad that serious fission was
going on.

AS opposed to humorous fission?

The whole point of storing spent fuel rods in ponds is because fission
is going on.

Yes I know that Oh Witty One. I'm talking about a pond that went
critical and perhaps even exploded - sometime in the 50s IIRC.

Hard to see how a pond can explode. There is nothing to confine the
pressure.

And criticality is nothing special. It just means the thing doesn't
start to decay in radioactive terms till the fuel runs out.



--
"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".

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
As usual, the program kept saying it's the worst place in the world, but
there have been some nasty issues with the storage facilities at Hanford
in the USA, and by all accounts some of the Russian sites are even worse.

IIRC, one of the Russian sites was so bad that serious fission was
going on. Then of course there's the nuclear graveyard with a number of
Rooshian nuclear subs abandoned and off their north coast somewhere.
Perhaps the BBC will do a film on the Russian sites next.

Of course. The BBC has such power the Russians will be forced to do
exactly what they want.

And I can barely wait for the comments on here about it:- 'How dare the
BBC waste our money on a jolly to Russia'

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

I'm talking about a pond that went
critical and perhaps even exploded - sometime in the 50s IIRC.

1957. Mayak, in Russia. Storage tank exploded when the cooling system
failed and the Ivans didn't notice, decay heat dried out the waste which
exploded, blowing the 160-ton concrete lid off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Anyone see the BBC prog on Sellafield?
 

On 07/09/16 10:38, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim
Streater escribió:

I'm talking about a pond that went
critical and perhaps even exploded - sometime in the 50s IIRC.

1957. Mayak, in Russia. Storage tank exploded when the cooling system
failed and the Ivans didn't notice, decay heat dried out the waste which
exploded, blowing the 160-ton concrete lid off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

So not a nuclear explosion and not a criticality.

Just a chemical explosion and some rather hot fuel rods.

And only a level 6. When Fukushima - level 7 doesn't kill ANYBODY who
cares about a level 6?


And of course the usual wild figures get bandied about

One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of
Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found
that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of
the accident."[2] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been
found for residents of the Techa riverside between 1950 and 1982 from
all causes of death,[13] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a
larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly
quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this
number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that
around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be
associated to radiation exposure.[13] This would include the effects of
all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long
before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the
airborne plume that was carried north-east.[14] The area closest to the
accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome,
providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[15]

so somewhere between 0 and 8,000 depending on which answer will do you
mire good in your chosen career.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx