What Does the U.S. Do with Nuclear Waste?

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

Does 9-11 mean anything to you?!?

Given that you have twice mentioned 911, I assume you are considering the potential threat of a nuclear power station being hit by something like a large commercial jetliner in the style of the WTC hits.


I suppose there has to be a possibility that somebody or some body might try to pull such a stunt. But the scenario is significantly different.

The target is very much smaller than the WTC buildings and construction is vastly different. A number of studies have shown that, even if a current design nuclear power plant was hit by a large commercial plane, the containment building would not be breached.

However, I am not aware of actual tests using a 767-400 fully loaded with passengers, baggage, and fuel......

As Wobs has said, few human endeavours are without risk. The power industry is no exception. A few UK incidents stick in my mind.

Most recently was the Buncefield fuel depot explosion. It was reported to have been heard at least 50 miles away. It was 20 miles from us and it certainly woke me up at about 06:00. Mrs B was already up. The noise rumbled on for a bit and we initially thought an aircraft had crash landed. Given the intensity of the explosion and ensuing fire, it is amazing that little more than minor injuries were sustained. Residential property in the area was extensive and thousands had to be evacuated. Over two years later and still some people haven't been able to return to their homes.

The Piper Alpha explosion which resulted in 167 fatalities. It resulted from a series of human errors and poor communication. It is an incident regularly used on safety training courses. One can only hope that the lessons learned continue to be taken note of.

This last is a tragedy in every sense. A coal waste tip engulfed a primary school. There was a total death toll of 144, 116 of them young children.
It happened quite a long time ago,1966, but for anyone of my generation Aberfan will always be associated with that disaster.

The bottom line I guess, is that if we want to have power, we have to accept some degree of risk, however it arises. And, if we want to have power without the emissions from fossils, the only viable alternative is nuclear.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Given that you have twice mentioned 911, I assume you are considering the potential threat of a nuclear power station being hit by something like a large commercial jetliner in the style of the WTC hits.


I suppose there has to be a possibility that somebody or some body might try to pull such a stunt. But the scenario is significantly different.

The target is very much smaller than the WTC buildings and construction is vastly different. A number of studies have shown that, even if a current design nuclear power plant was hit by a large commercial plane, the containment building would not be breached.

However, I am not aware of actual tests using a 767-400 fully loaded with passengers, baggage, and fuel......

As Wobs has said, few human endeavours are without risk. The power industry is no exception. A few UK incidents stick in my mind.

Most recently was the Buncefield fuel depot explosion. It was reported to have been heard at least 50 miles away. It was 20 miles from us and it certainly woke me up at about 06:00. Mrs B was already up. The noise rumbled on for a bit and we initially thought an aircraft had crash landed. Given the intensity of the explosion and ensuing fire, it is amazing that little more than minor injuries were sustained. Residential property in the area was extensive and thousands had to be evacuated. Over two years later and still some people haven't been able to return to their homes.

The Piper Alpha explosion which resulted in 167 fatalities. It resulted from a series of human errors and poor communication. It is an incident regularly used on safety training courses. One can only hope that the lessons learned continue to be taken note of.

This last is a tragedy in every sense. A coal waste tip engulfed a primary school. There was a total death toll of 144, 116 of them young children.
It happened quite a long time ago,1966, but for anyone of my generation Aberfan will always be associated with that disaster.

The bottom line I guess, is that if we want to have power, we have to accept some degree of risk, however it arises. And, if we want to have power without the emissions from fossils, the only viable alternative is nuclear.

You assume too much. The method of Terrorism employed during the incident now known as 9-11 was radical.

You expect me to believe that Terrorists will continue to employ that same method over and over again, therefore assurances that this method will fail should send me quietly back to sleep and into over-indulgent consumer mode again???

>>>Only because you are whack!

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

You assume too much. The method of Terrorism employed during the incident now known as 9-11 was radical.

You expect me to believe that Terrorists will continue to employ that same method over and over again,

I don't know what you expect but I fully expect terrorists to continue to use tried methods and to dream up some new.

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

therefore assurances that this method will fail should send me quietly back to sleep and into over-indulgent consumer mode again???

Following my answer above, obviously not.

I made two points.

The first is that the power industry, like others, is not without risk. The human race is not totally risk averse. We do accept that risks exist. We can and do take measures to mitigate their effects and the probability of their occurrence. But we can't entirely obviate risk.
Regardless of the source of power.

The second point is that if we want continuity of supply without fossils there is no viable alternative to nuclear in the short to medium term.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against renewable initiatives and I'm not in the pay of the nuclear power industry. I'm not promoting oil and gas either.

[prashamk]

Check this out

ONE of "the most contaminated places on Earth" will only get dirtier if the US government doesn't get its act together - clean-up plans are already 19 years behind schedule and not due for completion until 2050.

More than 210 million litres of radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks at Hanford in Washington State. Most are over 50 years old. Already 67 of the tanks have failed, leaking almost 4 million litres of waste into the ground.

MORE


P. S. Above link also has info on recent leak from French Nuclear Power Plant.

[forfismum]

Why not link directly to the source instead of to posts on your own forum?

[forfismum]

So.I have had a look at the information about Hanford [on the web ] and note that this is a politically inspired scare story.Why should low level waste which is being cleaned up be of concern? I would be more concerned at the possibility of growing manboobs as a consequence of the hormones in the local water than I would be by any radiation.I live in an area where background natural radiation is way above the levels found near ANY nuclear facility that you care to mention.people are dying from lung cancer caused by radon gas but not in droves and far as I know I am unlikely to be evacuated any day soon.

[wanshun1818]

I hope all the countries should do much to reduce the pollution brought by nuclear energy as well as any other enery pollution

[prashamk]

Recently I was surfing some other forum and I came to know some astonishing comment on Nuclear Reactor!

Some one said that Toshiba has developed a Nuclear Reactor that doesn't produce any waste!

I don't have any links as I don't remember where I found it. But is it possible by laws of physics?

[LMagic007]

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/1...as-home-n.html

Toshiba's Home Nuclear Reactor | Gadget Lab from Wired.com

As I understand it's self contained, but at the end of its life will have to be disposed of. I suspect useful for powering nuclear bomb shelters and command posts and perhaps used in the Artic and Antartic etc... Hopefully there is no risk of meltdown.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1341155

[sofomor]

Recycled!