Comments for shut sellafield http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog Think about it! Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on Norway to contact Ireland over THORP by Brian Greene http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2007/norway-to-contact-ireland-over-thorp/#comment-1373 Brian Greene Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:44:57 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2007/norway-to-contact-ireland-over-thorp/#comment-1373 thanks for this. so like a money back bottle scheme where the bottles come in for recycling but can be, the NDA UK Govt and BNG? are sending back to Germany & Japan etc. stockpiled plutonium, uranium and vitrified waste. What do they plan to do with the backlog then? keep it? in Sellafield? forever? thanks for this. so like a money back bottle scheme where the bottles come in for recycling but can be, the NDA UK Govt and BNG? are sending back to Germany & Japan etc. stockpiled plutonium, uranium and vitrified waste. What do they plan to do with the backlog then? keep it? in Sellafield? forever?

]]> Comment on Norway to contact Ireland over THORP by professor matt http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2007/norway-to-contact-ireland-over-thorp/#comment-1343 professor matt Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:05:51 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2007/norway-to-contact-ireland-over-thorp/#comment-1343 Considering you comment: "Neighbouring countries such as Ireland and Norway are very vulnerable to any major discharge of radioactive material from THORP or its associated waste facilities" There is an article that you must read! Headline: Thorp owners propose sending material from existing stockpiles of uranium, plutonium and vitrified waste ahead of completing reprocessing. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/wasteRecycling/Thorp_products_may_be_sent_in_advance_of_recycling_150607.shtml">Check out the full story here</a> [uri updated by bhg] Considering you comment: “Neighbouring countries such as Ireland and Norway are very vulnerable to any major discharge of radioactive material from THORP or its associated waste facilities”

There is an article that you must read!

Headline: Thorp owners propose sending material from existing stockpiles of uranium, plutonium and vitrified waste ahead of completing reprocessing.

Check out the full story here

[uri updated by bhg]

]]> Comment on reaction to shutting sellafield by Cllr. David Healy http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2007/reaction-to-shutting-sellafield/#comment-406 Cllr. David Healy Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:24:27 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2007/reaction-to-shutting-sellafield/#comment-406 There is an All-Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum, which works closely with the UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities. Fingal is now a member, along with Louth, South Dublin, Monaghan, Newry and Mourne, Down, Bray, Dublin Regional Authority and probably a few more by this stage. http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/ There is an All-Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum, which works closely with the UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities. Fingal is now a member, along with Louth, South Dublin, Monaghan, Newry and Mourne, Down, Bray, Dublin Regional Authority and probably a few more by this stage.

http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/

]]> Comment on BNG Sellafield fined £500,000 by Brian Greene http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/bng-sellafield-fined-%c2%a3500000/#comment-132 Brian Greene Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:14:52 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/bng-sellafield-fined-%c2%a3500000/#comment-132 Michael Nuclear means jobs always will best explained by Ewan MacColl in the song 'Nuclear Means Jobs', which we should all listen to. because when its shut, there will be jobs for many many years dealing with the fact that this type of nuclear was once here. And given a major accident, there will be even more jobs, nuclear goes on and on creating jobs. Michael Nuclear means jobs always will
best explained by Ewan MacColl in the song ‘Nuclear Means Jobs’, which we should all listen to. because when its shut, there will be jobs for many many years dealing with the fact that this type of nuclear was once here. And given a major accident, there will be even more jobs, nuclear goes on and on creating jobs.

]]> Comment on BNG Sellafield fined £500,000 by Michael http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/bng-sellafield-fined-%c2%a3500000/#comment-131 Michael Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:35:12 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/bng-sellafield-fined-%c2%a3500000/#comment-131 Ah so just shut sellafield eh?. Well try telling the 10,000 or so people who work there most of whom have families to support and bills to pay, not to mention the 100's of contractors who will loose out on the work BNG gives them at sellafield. Also where do we get back the vast amounts of money Sellafield generates for the goverment wth its world wide contracts. THORP alone must be a multi billion pound programme,so yeah lets just shut it and see the impact it will have not only local but for the country as a whole. Accidents happen and many other companies do not keep to maintainace shedules,for example airline companies, many accidents have been caused by poor or changed maintainace schedules. So what now close all the Airlines?. Ah so just shut sellafield eh?. Well try telling the 10,000 or so people who work there most of whom have families to support and bills to pay, not to mention the 100’s of contractors who will loose out on the work BNG gives them at sellafield.

Also where do we get back the vast amounts of money Sellafield generates for the goverment wth its world wide contracts.

THORP alone must be a multi billion pound programme,so yeah lets just shut it and see the impact it will have not only local but for the country as a whole.

Accidents happen and many other companies do not keep to maintainace shedules,for example airline companies, many accidents have been caused by poor or changed maintainace schedules.

So what now close all the Airlines?.

]]> Comment on BNG Sellafield fined £500,000 by Seamus Ryan http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/bng-sellafield-fined-%c2%a3500000/#comment-128 Seamus Ryan Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:52:51 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/bng-sellafield-fined-%c2%a3500000/#comment-128 It is time that Sellafield was closed down. Its record on safety issues is poor to say the least. It is time that Sellafield was closed down. Its record on safety issues is poor to say the least.

]]> Comment on Nuclear Blair back with a vengeance by Clarity http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-31 Clarity Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:01:03 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-31 Please can we separate our arguements. Yes, the lessons from the past should be considered when contemplating new build but to imply that new build stations will take twice as long to clean up as they will operate is simple scare mongering. To shut down Sellafield is one thing - that is the proposition of dealing with 50 years of ill-conceived waste management, which is there, requires clean up and will not just go away. But to set that against a programme of new build in which the generation of waste has been considered from the outset is quite simply naive. I doubt you'll find a single person working at or living near Sellafield that doesn't want to see the nuclear legacy at Sellfield cleaned up and that aspect of Sellafield shutdown (although there are concerns regarding employment post shutdown). The problems, costs and timescales involved are indeed amazing but this with us now, to abandon it would be the worst thing that could be done. The wastes involved in many cases date from early research into nuclear power and generate plutonium for 'the nuclear deterent', at a time when waste and the hazards weren't a consideration (did you consider the consequences of CO2 emissions 25 years ago?) There is a dedicated team of several thousand people working night and day to ensure that it is cleaned up in the best possible way. Have you been to the Sellafield visitors centre? I suggest you make a visit and look around particularly upstairs where there is a wealth of (surprisingly?) open information. Todays New Build Power stations are an entirely different kettle of fish designed to minimise the generation of waste, maximise power output, many hazards have been designed out (Chernobyl would be an impossibility) and minimise production of long-lived radionuclides such as Pu. The waste generated from many new nuclear facilities is likely to be a small fraction of what we already have. Lets be clear, there are issues with new build - uranium is not a renewable fuel, although immobilised a final repository has not been established and the costs of ensuring safety, security, minimising waste and covering decommissioning costs do not make this a 'cheap' option. However, I personally believe this is our only current realistic option to provide the baseload required for security of supply and still meet our environmental commitments (be sure climate change is occuring and the consequences could be devastating). Please can we separate our arguements.

Yes, the lessons from the past should be considered when contemplating new build but to imply that new build stations will take twice as long to clean up as they will operate is simple scare mongering.

To shut down Sellafield is one thing - that is the proposition of dealing with 50 years of ill-conceived waste management, which is there, requires clean up and will not just go away. But to set that against a programme of new build in which the generation of waste has been considered from the outset is quite simply naive.

I doubt you’ll find a single person working at or living near Sellafield that doesn’t want to see the nuclear legacy at Sellfield cleaned up and that aspect of Sellafield shutdown (although there are concerns regarding employment post shutdown). The problems, costs and timescales involved are indeed amazing but this with us now, to abandon it would be the worst thing that could be done. The wastes involved in many cases date from early research into nuclear power and generate plutonium for ‘the nuclear deterent’, at a time when waste and the hazards weren’t a consideration (did you consider the consequences of CO2 emissions 25 years ago?) There is a dedicated team of several thousand people working night and day to ensure that it is cleaned up in the best possible way. Have you been to the Sellafield visitors centre? I suggest you make a visit and look around particularly upstairs where there is a wealth of (surprisingly?) open information.

Todays New Build Power stations are an entirely different kettle of fish designed to minimise the generation of waste, maximise power output, many hazards have been designed out (Chernobyl would be an impossibility) and minimise production of long-lived radionuclides such as Pu. The waste generated from many new nuclear facilities is likely to be a small fraction of what we already have.

Lets be clear, there are issues with new build - uranium is not a renewable fuel, although immobilised a final repository has not been established and the costs of ensuring safety, security, minimising waste and covering decommissioning costs do not make this a ‘cheap’ option. However, I personally believe this is our only current realistic option to provide the baseload required for security of supply and still meet our environmental commitments (be sure climate change is occuring and the consequences could be devastating).

]]> Comment on Nuclear Blair back with a vengeance by Brian Greene http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-9 Brian Greene Fri, 19 May 2006 13:35:33 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-9 DTI site said (and it was moved or removed) "Cleaning up the nuclear legacy is a long term process. It is a programme which will cost many billions of pounds over a period of many decades. Ensuring that the necessary skills and resources are in place and that the right jobs get done at the right time to get the best value for the taxpayer is a major undertaking." ... " it (NDA)will be in a position to take decisions that balance short, medium and long term considerations. These will reflect the fact that the clean up programme has to be sustained over a period of 100 years or more. " so for every year of operation it takes 2 to clean up. no, nuclear has not got a solution to its own waste problem. them atom splitters promised 'free' power, just as well they were in science not economics. I live 5 minutes from the most radioactive sea in the world. My country has no nuclear facilities, billions of gallons of waste is pumped into the sea 60 miles from my country. No I don't want it, not here not in the UK or Iran.... DTI site said (and it was moved or removed) “Cleaning up the nuclear legacy is a long term process. It is a programme which will cost many billions of pounds over a period of many decades. Ensuring that the necessary skills and resources are in place and that the right jobs get done at the right time to get the best value for the taxpayer is a major undertaking.” … ” it (NDA)will be in a position to take decisions that balance short, medium and long term considerations. These will reflect the fact that the clean up programme has to be sustained over a period of 100 years or more. ”

so for every year of operation it takes 2 to clean up. no, nuclear has not got a solution to its own waste problem. them atom splitters promised ‘free’ power, just as well they were in science not economics. I live 5 minutes from the most radioactive sea in the world. My country has no nuclear facilities, billions of gallons of waste is pumped into the sea 60 miles from my country. No I don’t want it, not here not in the UK or Iran….

]]> Comment on Nuclear Blair back with a vengeance by The almighty http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-8 The almighty Fri, 19 May 2006 12:01:21 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-8 Oh nowhere in that article does it say every 10 years, just the cost itself. Oh nowhere in that article does it say every 10 years, just the cost itself.

]]> Comment on Nuclear Blair back with a vengeance by The almighty http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-7 The almighty Fri, 19 May 2006 12:00:00 +0000 http://www.shutsellafield.com/blog/2006/nuclear-blair-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-7 Debate, that's all we have. Endless inquiries and meetings to decide what needs to be done. somuch so that when it is decided it has already cost as much as the project was going to due to consultants fees etc. The thing is no one is saying just nuclear, just that the nuclear option is very much one that will be taken. Prove to me that with current and projected levels of technology in renewables you can provide for the whole of the UK energy needs, even taking efficiency savings in to account and I might consider it, but at the moment nuclear is one important part of the energy puzzle. Debate, that’s all we have. Endless inquiries and meetings to decide what needs to be done. somuch so that when it is decided it has already cost as much as the project was going to due to consultants fees etc.

The thing is no one is saying just nuclear, just that the nuclear option is very much one that will be taken. Prove to me that with current and projected levels of technology in renewables you can provide for the whole of the UK energy needs, even taking efficiency savings in to account and I might consider it, but at the moment nuclear is one important part of the energy puzzle.

]]>