mg-

Maine is already experimenting with floating wind towers off-shore. There doesn't seem to be an engineering problem with this concept and it would seem to have less of an environmental impact than building a supporting platform based on the sea floor.

I'm not sure what happens to these floating wind towers when there is a major gale or tsunami, but I guarantee there will be no radiation release.

Q-

The recently removed nuclear fuel (highly radioactive) from the Unit 4 reactor would have been stored with older spent fuel (still considered high-level nuclear waste) in the pool adjacent to the reactor head. I'm not sure where they store new fuel rods but I don't believe they have to be cooled until they have begun to be used. After a period of 5 years or so the spent fuel can be safely transferred to the common spent fuel pool or dry cask storage where it's still considered high level nuclear waste for thousands of years.

Spent nuclear fuel does lose its radioactivity fairly rapidly but there is so much radioactive content that whatever remains makes the fuel rod essentially deadly forever. This is a confusing concept, made further confusing by referring to the used nuclear fuel rods as "spent fuel." Supporters of nuclear power often point out how rapidly the radioactivity of a freshly removed fuel rod decreases, with the implication that it would be relatively harmless in a short period of time. When they do this, they are deliberately trying to mislead the public.

"Strontium's dandy,
Why it's just like candy!
The roaches will inherit the earth!

Charley Noble