It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Encapsulating Military And Civil Nuclear Waste UK

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Dr Ross Hesketh told us the Magnox reactors were producing military plutonium. www.haroldbeck.org.uk...

Here's an extract from The Benn Diaries.

Tuesday 2 August

I had a fascinating talk with Robert Alvarez, an American from the Environmental Policy Institute in Washington, who is in Japan. I asked him about the sale of British plutonium to the Untited States. He told me that it started in 1959 and went on until 1979, when it was probably terminated by President Carter. It was a barter agreement under which the United States supplied us with tritium and high-enriched uranium for nuclear-powered Polaris submarines in exchange for plutonium from our Magnox civil nuclear power stations for use in American nuclear weapons.

Alvarez said the Americans wanted the Magnox plutonium because it was purer than that from the PWR. He told me that in 1980 the supply resumed, partly to fend off criticisms of Carter by Reagan on the eve of the presidential election.

From 1966 to 1970 and from 1975 to 1979 I was the Minister responsible for atomic energy, and I had absolutely no knowledge of this. Encouraged by my officials, I used to give talks on the uses of civil nuclear power, while all that time our civil power stations were supplying plutonium for American nuclear weapons. Recently Ross Hesketh of the CEGB made a statement in Britain in which he revealed this story, and he was promptly sacked by Sir Walter Marshall, Chairman of the CEGB which has led to some argument in Britain.


Magnox has a legacy of very dangerous waste. Much of it was going to be packed into cast iron boxes. www.neimagazine.com...
They changed their minds and it's £200 million cheaper. www.gazetteseries.co.uk... from_Berkeley_site/

There's little agreement on a national nuclear dump for all the encapsulated waste so it's expected to sit around on the various sites for a few decades. It's safer encapsulated in concrete, those cast iron boxes were ready made dirty bombs. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Should we push for the encapsulated waste be moved to a central dump or is it better left scattered at the various coastal sites?




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Thought I would through this piece into the mix as I found it interesting .

In light of the Ukrainian events numerous articles about the interests of the EU and the USA in Ukraine have emerged. One of these interests, according to some data, may be disposal of nuclear waste on the land that has survived the Chernobyl tragedy. Pravda.Ru tried to figure out whether this information about using Ukraine as a repository for nuclear waste was reliable.
The media reported that the EU and the U.S. were negotiating with the current central government of Ukraine regarding the disposal of nuclear waste in the western territories of the country. According to some reports, Kiev would be paid a considerable sum of money that would help to stabilize the economic situation in the country for the provision of land for the burial of nuclear waste. english.pravda.ru...
-



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
They have been debating this for at least 50 years now, even in the 1970's. The first problem was "where" to store this waste. There really are only two options; at the site of an existing nuclear reactor or underground. The first option was usually "oh, let's move everything to Dounreay, since that's where we store everything else and not many people live up there". That site is now being decommissioned and all the nuclear waste brought in is being returned to the county of origin. So that option is out. The problem with storing waste underground is that there is the risk of cave-ins, or other geological problems like floods. So that's really out.

www.bbc.com...

That leaves the other nuclear decommissioning sites such as Sellafield as the only option.

www.sellafieldsites.com...

Then once you have decided on a site, then the problem is transporting the waste there. When they were transporting fuel rods, transportation by road with an armed police/military escort was the only option.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester


Should we push for the encapsulated waste be moved to a central dump or is it better left scattered at the various coastal sites?

Doesn't matter what they do with it. Its here to stay… and stay… and stay…

Generation of electrical power is incidental to the development and production of atomic weapons. It gives the arms race a useful, civilian face.

Atoms for Peace


edit on 6-6-2015 by intrptr because: link



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Thank you I knew nothing of that.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

I have to wonder if the stance against transport has been fostered to prevent us sorting out the problem. The various coastal reactor sites are not ideal storage places for dangerous waste. The sea may cause issues and security isn't sufficient. The photograph on your BBC link shows the vulnerability to erosion and flooding. A centralised upland dump may be a safer option for waste set into concrete. The potentially reusable waste is another question. Allegedly it can be neutralised through use in Thorium reactors but I don't know anything about that.

No one really knows how the various wastes will react over time and that's a reason for keeping it where packages can be inspected. The blown out drums in the American depository show why monitoring is needed.

Sellafield is a potential disaster. The Magnox reactors were run full power during a miners strike. We have to ask now if the situation was caused or manipulated to produce maximum weapons grade plutonium. The used fuel overwhelmed the recycling line and the pools were abandoned. Difficult to see how this could have happened by accident. Almost like we have been deliberately saddled with the nuclear threat. www.theecologist.org...

Sellafield is out because the risk there is too great. Heavy contamination of the area is a possibility making checking the packages a more difficult chore. Also erosion and flooding are certain within the life of the waste.

I don't think transport is too much of an issue. Plenty of nuclear material get's moved around without excessive danger.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's here to stay but it can be made safer while it's here. The active waste vaults a few miles away are crumbling and prone to flooding. The corroded fins stripped off the fuel rods and the undocumented laboratory waste has to be clawed out of the vaults and encapsulated to prevent massive further contamination of the River Severn. Once it's encapsulated I agree, it isn't going to make much difference where it is as long as we can keep track of it.

The way British politicians are controlled by the unelected permanent government is neatly illustrated by the Secretary of State for Energy, Tony Benn, being encouraged by his 'officials' to give talks on civil nuclear power while being kept in ignorance.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester


The way British politicians are controlled by the unelected permanent government is neatly illustrated by the Secretary of State for Energy, Tony Benn, being encouraged by his 'officials' to give talks on civil nuclear power while being kept in ignorance.

Interesting. Meanwhile, the politicians are confronting engineers saying, hey you promised you would have this storage problem worked out by now.

The engineers are like, no we didn't. Thats what you were sold by our bosses who wanted to make money and told you anything you need to hear to get you to go along with the program. We were warning about the waste down the road from the beginning.

Nuclear waste wants out of containment. Its around long enough to achieve this despite any of mans efforts to contain it.

Pandora is sooo sorry.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester


I don't think transport is too much of an issue. Plenty of nuclear material get's moved around without excessive danger.

Voluntarily letting it out of containment.

Its like a virus hiding in a host as it moves around the globe.

Eventually it will spread, whether by corroding its containment or by people "moving it" to prevent that.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19424671]the2ofusr1[/post
Whoops! That wouldn't be the same Ukraine that's at the centre of contraversy for the Russians. I would think that the very place to put all nuclear waste is Westminster or Washington therefore placing the very ruling people in charge of their own safety and by extension their countries.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Yea the same Ukraine where it has been observed

Concerns have been raised by environmentalists and atomic power experts over the way waste is being stored at Europe’s largest nuclear power station, in crisis-ridden Ukraine.

More than 3,000 spent nuclear fuel rods are kept inside metal casks within towering concrete containers in an open-air yard close to a perimeter fence at Zaporizhia, the Guardian discovered on a recent visit to the plant, which is 124 miles (200km) from the current front line.

“With a war around the corner, it is shocking that the spent fuel rod containers are standing under the open sky, with just a metal gate and some security guards waltzing up and down for protection,” said Patricia Lorenz, a Friends of the Earth nuclear spokeswoman who visited the plant on a fact-finding mission.

“I have never seen anything like it,” she added. “It is unheard of when, in Germany, interim storage operators have been ordered by the court to terror-proof their casks with roofs and reinforced walls.”
www.theguardian.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Ross Hesketh www.theguardian.com... was one of those who warned about the waste problem and was ignored. He also said government advisers were left wondering what they'd been paid for when their recommendations for safer reactors were always turned down by the government in favour of cheaper options.

The storage problem is clearly nowhere near solved. I feel it is essential to bring peoples attention to the shockingly dangerous state of dangerous waste at various sites around the UK. Only an ignoramus or a suicidal/genocidal maniac could support new build reactors.

I've spent several days considering changing my attitude on the transport of radioactive waste after reading your comments.
edit on 10 6 2015 by Kester because: remove word



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester


I've spent several days considering changing my attitude on the transport of radioactive waste after reading your comments.

Thanks Kester, I changed my stance on it too, after participating in the Fukushima thread here on ATS.

Its a deep rabbit hole of trying to keep containment, then move it and contaminate some other site, transport apparatus and roadways with stuff. Meanwhile covering up all the problems associated with long term storage of the most toxic material on the planet. Let alone the bombs they also make during the process.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join