Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by WesLangdon, Jan 30, 2013.
Can we not sell it to terrorists?
Guy Fawkes had the best idea.
Fukushima or Chernobyl could hardly get more contaminated.
Its true that Copland borough council voted 6 to 1 in favour as I believe did nearby Allerdale Borough Council but Allerdale's vote was ruled inadmissible and Copland's vote was overruled by the greater authority of Cumbria's County Council 7to3 against vote. I expect Copland saw the issue in terms of increased economic activity and employment in their area and Cumbria was influenced rightly or wrongly by the "bigger picture" pressure from the local tourist industry who saw it as detrimental to their business? I doubt the environmental lobby had much of a look in when the issue came down to what was ultimately a "vested interest" hard cash issue. Both sides perhaps basing their arguments on false assumptions? Part of the problem would appear to be that none of the details of the benefits/ disadvantages involved will ever get fully explored now.
Could we drill to the centre of the earth and incinerate it in the core?
If everybody is equally expendable and some real estate is worth significantly more or less then you stick something unwanted where there are fewer people and cheaper real estate.
That is eminently sensible whether the (relatively) few locals like it or not.
Today's 'open political climate' is just a bit more emotional and hysterical about it.
As George Orwell might put it -----everyone's expendable but some people are more expendable than others.
Surprised the government are even asking , they already have a large dump that they are starting to use for dumping the poorer inhaditants , a place they are already cutting public services , cutting funding to councils , hospitals and schools . It's commonly known as ...
UP NORTH !!!
Not sure how serious you were but I've often thought this might be a solution - given the sun is a ball of atomic activity anyway - I can't imagine there would be any dire consequences.
Not sure it if particularly responsible and you'd sht yourself if something dire did happen...!
It is a really dumb decision, a lot of it down to Eco warriors who see this as a way of kyboshing the plans for new nukes altogether. All well and good until the lights start going out, as they will within the forseeable future.
What puzzles me is what they are talking about is vitrified high level waste.
Where is it stored right now? Why, above ground in Sellafield!
Also, the Government asked councils across the UK to volunteer to become the home of the subterranean repository. Of those that put themselves forward only Cumbria was still in the game: the rest had pulled out.
What if the rocket exploded on takeoff?
Or ten miles up?
Send it from the same place they did that massive bomb test in the 50s?
Nah, I still think we should send it over to the Frenchies.
It is indeed stored above ground at Sellafield. The problem is the really high level waste is extremely hazardous and storing it has a degree of risk - terrorist attack, fire or **** up. The really, really nasty stuff can be recycled into high energy reactor fuel, and that will produce less nasty waste.
Personally, I'd feel safer if it were buried a kilometre underground in stable rock, which Cumbria may or may not have.
Most of the waste is from the 50s to 70s, when attitudes were a bit different....
But surely the government can't just go around asking local authorities 'would you mind terribly if we dumped the nations' nuclear waste in your back garden? It's all very safe you know" - why would anyone say 'yes'? Surely the government must have absolute powers to make such decisions. With proper planning and consultations, yes, and local authorities should be allowed to make representations, but the government must have the last say - or we risk ending-up with nuclear waste that we can't bury anywhere?
Stephen Hawking has the answer - have you seen his 'Go Compare' ad? Just launch it all into the black hole!
Dumping it in outer space is ultimately the solution, though there are several hurdles yet to be crossed, safety is one, practicality is another - the waste is stored in concrete/lead containers, and weight is a serious issue when lifting to outer space.
When my BIL was first working after graduating he was involved in the design and testing of these and other nuclear containers.
One day, he and a colleague burnt one for a while by using 750 Gallons of petrol.
He went onto bigger and better things than having fun with fire.
There was a TV series in the 70's where they dumped it on the moon, a big explosion and the moon took off into space. Space 1999
There was this nuclear flask train crash safety demo in the 80's The CEGB "as was" attempt to reduce fears on the transport of nuclear fuel.[YOUTUBE]lHtRZ_k0s7M[/YOUTUBE]