Difference between revisions of "User:Phosyngen"
From NexusWiki
Redirect page
(Replaced content with "#REDIRECT Spampage 23") |
(→Cumbrias nuclear dump cant bury the waste problem Damian C: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Spampage 23]] | #REDIRECT [[Spampage 23]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Cumbrias nuclear dump cant bury the waste problem Damian C == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div id="article-body-blocks"> <p> is long-lived and extremely dangerous and consequently poses near interminable and politically toxic questions. Wednesday's vote,cheap lululemon, by of waste in the area, is the perfect illustration.</p><p>But let's start at the beginning. Is burying nuclear waste deep within bedrock necessary? Yes is the answer of most experts, though only because it is the least worst option,lululemon outlet online. Over 25 countries with significant waste piles have opted for deep disposal as the ultimate solution,lululemon outlet. The perils of floods,Nike Air Max UK, terrorist attacks and earthquakes mean long-term surface storage poses even greater risks than entombing the waste in a rock sarcophagus. As for blasting it into space, as some have suggested, does placing tonnes of radioactive waste on top of hundreds of tonnes of high explosive sound smart?</p><p>So is deep disposal safe? The answer is no-one knows,Moyes he replied Fou, because despite 60 years having passed since the nuclear age began, no-one has ever done it,Toms Shoes Outlet. Sweden has the most advanced plans, with an experimental deep disposal facility, but no nuclear waste has yet been consigned to its depths. In the US, vast amounts of money was spent over many years but ended up with plans for in 2010,lululemon outlet canada.</p><p>The situation is uncomfortably similar in the UK. In the 1980s a nationwide search for a suitable burial site was undertaken. In a process described by Prof Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at the University of Edinburgh, as "mysterious and which no-one understood", the site selected was conveniently very close to the epicentre of the UK nuclear industry at Sellafield in Cumbria.</p><p>The government then spent ?400m on 22 boreholes investigating the Longlands Farm site but a 65-day public planning enquiry ultimately rejected it because the site was technically unsuitable,Knausgaard is bruta, as well the proposed project having severe impacts on the surface.</p><p>They key problem that has to be solved with deep disposal is ensuring, for millennia, that radioactive waste does not leak out into groundwater which is then brought to the surface. The UK is fortunate not to suffer serious earthquakes but the site chosen had extremely complex geology, riven with fractures, meaning there was an unacceptable risk of radioactive waste being washed back to the surface.</p><p>Extraordinarily,Toms Shoes Outlet, after all that time and money was spent in ruling out that site, it is back in the running under the plans the councils are voting on,Ariel Castro due in court over Cleveland abductio,Cheap Nike Air Max 90. Prof Haszeldine is scathing about how this has happened: "This is a very short-sighted policy, run by driving local councils into volunteering for the wrong reasons: financial inducements. Many of the statements being made by the authorities [about the site] are misleading to wrong."</p><p>In fact the situation now is even worse than in the 1980s. The proposal now would see spent fuel and high-level waste buried, rather than only intermediate level waste. The former is much hotter than the latter, which would hugely accelerate the circulation of groundwater, according to Prof Haszeldine. </p><p>"The waste exists and deep geological disposal is by far the best solution," said Prof Haszeldine. "But we should have a genuine national search for technically qualified sites. Ultimately, do we believe in evidence-based policy or political opportunism to exploit communities with limited economic opportunities?"</p><p>A number of worrying conclusions can be drawn from all this,lululemon outlet. First, the process of choosing a deep disposal site appears more concerned with burying political problems than finding the right geological site. Asking local communities for their assent is of course essential, but getting that assent by burying geological problems under layers of cash will only see those problems rise, zombie-like, from the grave in future.</p><p>Second, after half a century of and its ever-growing waste pile, isn't it astonishing that no-one anywhere on the planet has demonstrated a permanent way to deal with it? All the while, the costs to the public of keeping this toxic legacy safe on the surface continue to spiral out of control. Yet, despite only having sticking plaster solutions to the waste problem to hand,Toms Shoes Outlet, the UK government and others are dead set on building a new fleet of reactors.</p><p>Perhaps most worrying of all is that whatever the result of the votes in Cumbria, ministers will undoubtedly keep digging themselves deeper into the nuclear hole. Dealing with legacy waste is unavoidable but adding to this apparently unsolvable problem is not. Phasing out nuclear power is challenging in terms of policy, but a breeze compared to the long-term waste problem. The backing of new reactors once again shows the triumph of the short-term political fix over the genuine long-term solution.</p> </div> | ||
