Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 1508 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Sellafield Clean Up.

Zoomup

Sellafield is having a big clean up. It is called Britain's most dangerous building. It has 10,000 m3 of radioactive sludge. The sludge is being put into big backed bean tins and covered in Polyfilla. A robotic arm is being used to handle the sludge. But a comforting thought perhaps is that Hanford in the U.S.A. has 20 times the amount of high level nuclear waste as Sellafield. (or perhaps not so comforting after all).

Source: Not the Daily Mail.

Z.

Parents

  • The first question is why is it Britains most  dangerous building? It contains contaminated and activated fuel rod cladding from Britains gas cooled reactors. What are the dangers, some radiation, some fire risk from the light metals used in the cladding?

    It is certainly not representitive of the byproducts of current nuclear power generation. The Magnox and AGR reactors were designed for short burn up times and online refueling for making plutonium for nuclear weapons. Newer generation reactors have much longer burn up times which reduces the total amount of byproducts and produces plutonium that is not suitable for nuclear weapons due to contamination with other plutonium isotopes.

Reply

  • The first question is why is it Britains most  dangerous building? It contains contaminated and activated fuel rod cladding from Britains gas cooled reactors. What are the dangers, some radiation, some fire risk from the light metals used in the cladding?

    It is certainly not representitive of the byproducts of current nuclear power generation. The Magnox and AGR reactors were designed for short burn up times and online refueling for making plutonium for nuclear weapons. Newer generation reactors have much longer burn up times which reduces the total amount of byproducts and produces plutonium that is not suitable for nuclear weapons due to contamination with other plutonium isotopes.

Children
  • in reply to Roger B

    You cannot destroy this very toxic and dangerous waste you can only store it for several hundred years in secure storage.

    Every day more waste is generated down to contaminated gloves.

    Whilst it may be so called "clean" energy we are leaving this very dirty waste for future generations.

    We even have all of our old nuclear submarines tied up in harbor with continued maintenance as no one as yet has worked out a way of decommissioning them. But good news the plans to dismantle them are inching moving forward! See here www.navylookout.com/.../

  • in reply to John Peckham

    I saw that item a while ago John, and was about to post the same link.

    It makes for disturbing reading doesn't it.

    Mind you, Murmansk is even worse, where no attempts have been made at all to recover the reactors out of their growing and aging submarine hulks. The Barents sea is not one of the nicest places on the planet.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines