 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump?
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Sabine Date: 08 Apr 05 - 01:54 AM I found this on another message board... Fears over plans to dump nuclear waste in Scotland By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor RADIOACTIVE waste could end up being dumped at 30 nuclear sites in the UK, under plans to be unveiled by government advisers this week. In Scotland this would mean burying large volumes of low-level waste at six places: Hunterston in Ayrshire, Faslane near Helensburgh, Torness in East Lothian, Rosyth in Fife, Dounreay in Caithness and Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway. The plans would see more dangerous waste being disposed of in holes deep underground at one or more geologically suitable sites in the UK. Before that, it could be put in "interim storage" above or just below the ground. The recommendations are to be published tomorrow by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), set up by the government in 2003 to try and find a way to deal with the huge variety of waste created by the nuclear power and weapons industries over the last 50 years. According to CoRWM's estimates, there will be a total of 470,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste to get rid of, including plutonium, uranium and high-level fission products. Some of these wastes remain radioactive for just a few years, others for hundreds of thousands of years. This total doesn't include the 18 million cubic metres of soil and concrete thought to be contaminated with low-level radioactivity from leaks and spills at nuclear sites. There are an estimated 81,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil at the Hunterston A reactor site in Ayrshire. CoRWM's proposal is for some of the short-lived waste to be buried in shallow pits on the nuclear sites where it was created. This would avoid the need to transport the waste around the country. "It would mean that some radioactive waste would stay put," CoRW's chairman, Gordon MacKerron said. "But only if we were sure that the risks to future generations were negligible." For longer-lived waste, CoRWM thinks the best solution is some kind of "deep disposal". One option is to put the waste permanently in an underground chamber between 300 metres and two kilometres deep where the surrounding rocks would reduce the risk of leakage. A second option is to put the waste down deep holes from which it could be retrieved if something went wrong. Before either of these options are implemented, waste could also carry on being stored in tanks near the ground's surface for some years. CoRWM is not making any suggestions as to where these deep disposal sites might be. An official shortlist from the 1990s of about a dozen sites – many of which are suspected of being in Scotland – has been kept secret by the government. In a consultation document to be released tomorrow, CoRWM will for the first time be ruling out 11 ways that have been seriously suggested for disposing of radioactive waste. These include blasting it into space, injecting it into rock, freezing it in polar ice and dumping it at sea. "Everyone has played their part in helping us draw up our final shortlist. Now we can start to focus on the best options and see which will work and which won't," said MacKerron. CoRWM has had difficulties drawing up its recommendations because two of its members are suspended pending an investigation being carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The committee has also been attacked by some experts for wasting time trying to establish the obvious. But its role has been defended by UK environment minister, Elliot Morley. "The CoRWM programme will ensure that there is a complete decision-making audit trail. We are ultimately talking of solutions that will cost billions of pounds and decades to implement. Taking a little time now to get the decision right represents time and money well spent." CoRWM is aiming to submit its final report to ministers in July 2006. The newly formed government agency which will oversee the £50 billion job of cleaning up Britain's nuclear plants, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, came into existence on Friday. 03 April 2005 source:Siol nan Gaidheal I don't know what to say about this ***** Sabine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Boab Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:24 AM As long as the Scottish people keep voting for wanna-be-Westminster "Scots" to supposedly represent them in the UK parliament, the continuation of Scotlandshire as the dumping ground of the British Isles can be expected to continue. Our country isn't only the proposed midden for nuke waste, it is the "home " of the nuclear umbrella just north of Glasgow. How lucky those Glaswegians are to be so close to this wonderful "umbrella; makes you weep for the poor Londoners who have nothing like this down there on the Thames.... And what, you may ask, would the British Army do for commando training grounds, and how about the poor waifs of the American navy, who depend on the sturdy cliffs of Cape Wrath for their missile and gun training, now that they have been told to f--- off by Costa Rica? We had a wonderful Labour Energy Minister by the name of Brian Wilson---a native of the Hebrides, no less---who waxed poetic about the jobs which would be created for the folks in the Western Isles in laying a monster cable from the windfarms of the Highlands and Islands to supply the industrious folks ,way down there in the Home Counties! Aw----gimme a break! How about some industries in SCOTLAND which can use this power? Have you ever seen a schematic of the routing of the North Sea oil pipelines? There is an absolute glut of them direct from Aberdeen headed straight south across the border, and a miserable splinter or two side tracking into Scotland. And now we have a Parliament in Edinburgh. Better than nothing at all, without a doubt, but dominated unfortunately by the Labour group who, whether you like it or not, have their bosses in London. There is only one true path for Scotland; complete independence. That does NOT mean isolation from friends or even family in the South. There will not be another "war of independence". The Scots have it in their power to take their country back under their own control, and to do so without physical strife or violence. I have no great hope that this will happen soon, however. The only vote which can possibly bring this about is a vote for the SNP. Of those who persist in voting British Labour, I would ask "Why do you vote for a Westmister hegemony, when you claim to be a Scot? And why shun the SNP when they are the only party which has no other interest than the welfare of YOUR country, Scotland? Surely, to be 100% Scottish, you must have no other false allegiances?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:51 AM Scottish Nuclear Farce Please note the date of this article, this saga has be going on for years, and at present there are contractors excavating a shaft in which waste has been dumped for ages, and in which there has been an explosion not too long ago. The beach where they are finding these radioactive particles is the only one being surveyed regularly in the area, although it beggars belief if they think these particles have only travelled 20 miles and no further. There is a fierce tide runs through the Pentland Firth twice a day, and it is certain in my mind that this contamination is more widespread than the authorities are willing to admit. Scotland is already a waste dump and the fact that Caithness is over 600 miles north of Westminster only increases the chances of this dumping continuing. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Crystal Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:39 AM This is one of the stupidist proposals I have ever heard! HELLO Scotland ALREADY has the HIGHEST rate of new cancers per head of population AND the WORST aftercare in the UK! STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, BLOODY POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!! AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!! However it might encourage them to actually fund more cancer research again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Charley Noble Date: 08 Apr 05 - 08:54 AM Whatever is done with such enduring radioactive waste, it should never be "permanently" buried. It will only have to be dug up again, after containment fails in a few hundred years, repackaged at great expense and risk, and reburied for another few hundred years, and... It was incredibly stupid to have generated this waste in the first place, and incredibly stupid that many countries continue to do this, with no safe and secure way of desposing of it. The short term solution that is most acceptable is to store it in retrievable form at a site that is also fortified against terrorist activities. It is inevitable that nuclear waste storage sites will become targets for terrorists. Once nuclear waste starts to burn, after an explosion or plane crash, the radioactive plume will render the surrounding countryside uninhabitable for centuries. Yes, it's good to be concerned and if you're a newcomer to this issue you'll find a warm welcome from those who have been working on it for the last 40 years. Join their organizations, send money, and stay involved for the long haul. Charley Noble, whose parents courageously challenged the siting of Maine's only nuclear power plant back in 1968 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Alaska Mike Date: 08 Apr 05 - 11:28 AM "Will ya glow, lassie, glow. And we'll all glow together....." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: GUEST Date: 08 Apr 05 - 11:49 AM Morningside or Bearsden? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: GUEST,Marks Date: 08 Apr 05 - 12:32 PM Where is the waste being stored now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:07 PM The House of Commons G ;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Bill D Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM In the USA they have been debating where to store that stuff for 30 years! They were going to put it in salt mines in Kansas...but THAT was voted down...I think most of it is still setting in *old* containment vessels near where it was generated, being more of a danger than ANY of the proposed storage spots. It's always NIMBY (not in MY backyard!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM This is why the premise that nuclear powered electricity is cheap is a myth, when you take into account the costs of dealing with the waste, it is very expensive in more ways than one. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Bill D Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:04 PM I couldn't agree more, Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: GUEST Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM It's all went downhill since Culloden, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scotland to be nuclear waste dump? From: Boab Date: 10 Apr 05 - 04:30 AM Wasn't it a truly magnanimous gesture by the Westminster crew to allow the first ever British nuclear generator to be built on the north coast of Scotland. Jobs for the populace? No; the only way to build thedamn' place further from London was to wade into the Pentland firth! |
