JimmyA programme on BBC2 on Tuesday was most enlightening but concluded that we need more nuclear power to avoid CO2 emissions that cause climate change in the future, but did not see any solution to the waste problem.
Is the requirement for such low Sievert levels really necessary.?? Japan I believe were allowed to empty slightly radiated water into the sea with no problem?
Are we over specifying and wasting tax payers money for no benefit at all?
Well of course we already do, 'low level' in this context means you can swim in it and the ill effects will be due to other things, sewage probably, if its the UK coast we are considering, that and hyperthermia at this time of year.
Your comment about it not going down well with the public is exactly my point, it is only expensive because by choice we made it so.
If we banned carrying petrol in single skinned tanks at 70mph a few inches above the road surface, and required special fuel containment, cars would be more expensive too, but for some reason, that is a risk we are happy with.
Mike.
(if you have just fuelled up it is enough petrol to launch the driver into orbit if used as efficiently as a propellant, but that is most unlikely so quite correctly it does not worry you. You are far more likely than that to be burnt to death while in the vehicle, and far more likely still, to arrive at your destination completely unhurt, though how likely that is depends slightly on who is driving..)
PPS , perhaps don't get in if the Taxi looks like this... risk is a very subjective thing - he is happy with it...
