Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's real negligence, greed, and irresponsibility right there, not preparing for a once in a millennium occurrence.
Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.

Once in a millenia events occur quite often since there are an awful lot of them. The design of Fukishima was inherently flawed, they had a basement emergency power supply whose most logical use was in reaction to a tsunami knocking down the local power grid. Water flows into basements, it would have taken less than was given to flood their basement and cause a meltdown. The mauling of the plant wasn't even necessary, it would have taken a smaller wave then they got. This isn't really a disputed fact, that generation had a lot of issues, and illogically designed redundancies were among them.

Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.

Thats bs, that plant was badly made, badly designed, and badly upkept. That generation of GE plant had numerous design flaws, nearly all of which have been corrected in modern designs. Japan is as "well prepared as anyone", but they weren't prepared for this. They could and should have been.

This battle for the ideology of nuclear power is stupid. Nuclear power is safe when upkept, results in less deaths annually through it's entire infrastructure chain then coal or oil, and produces less harmful output on a day to day basis. It also has enormous risks involved with human operation and design failures and Fukishima was a perfect example of why you plan for obvious contingencies and don't let nuclear regulation get lax. TEPCO was not a well run utility as so many japanese utilities aren't. It suffered from much of the same bureaucratic graft that many Japanese utilities suffer from.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?

The entire disaster would of been prevented if they used a cooling system that didn't require reserve power, if they had a reserve power system that wasn't easily disabled by water, if they had a facility that keept the reserves in a sealed location so that they can't get flooded, if they had walls that were able to keep record size tsunamis out, or at the very least if they didn't put the entire plant on a tsunami risk coastal zone and instead just used some irrigation for water and placed it above the risk zone.

Lynata wrote:

There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?

You are delusional. Tepco built a 16ft wall and was hit by a 48ft wave. "A few feet higher" My arse. Did you perhaps mean "if they built it twice as tall" hmm I wonder if that would have worked.

But within a few minutes on March 11, the tsunami’s waves tore through the outer wall before easily surging over the 34-foot-high inner one, sweeping away those who had climbed on its top, and quickly taking away most of the town of Taro.

I guess not.
Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?

This realistic.
Go meteor proof your flat.

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:Wait. Anti-Nuclear writers say things that make nuclear power plant seem unsafe and 4th largest recorded earthquake was predictable? Say it ain't so.

"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."

There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.

AustonT wrote:Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.

You make a brilliant argument there.

AustonT wrote:So can you plan for a tsunami event like the one that effected Fukashima? Let's ask:
Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.

You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?

This isn't about an earthquake of any magnitude happening right underneath the city, this is about the flooding that comes from the oceans. Don't get the two mixed up.

There is evidence that at one point in the Earth's history, it rained methane. Should they have prepared for that as well?

Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?

"Hey guys, you ever wonder what'll happen if a wave gets over the walls?"

"Well It'd probably just flood the ground levels a bit, no big deal, most of our machinery is on a raised concrete groundplane well above the first floor."

"Wait, aren't our backups that keep the entire plant from melting down in the basement..?"

*Crickets*

Any implication that there weren't massive inherent design flaws in that plant are just nuclear fanboi bunk. Something that characterizes half of the posts in this thread.

I hear above ground nuclear testing caused mass extinction. Oh and the atom bomb.

AustonT wrote:

Lynata wrote:

There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?

You are delusional. Tepco built a 16ft wall and was hit by a 48ft wave. "A few feet higher" My arse. Did you perhaps mean "if they built it twice as tall" hmm I wonder if that would have worked.

But within a few minutes on March 11, the tsunami’s waves tore through the outer wall before easily surging over the 34-foot-high inner one, sweeping away those who had climbed on its top, and quickly taking away most of the town of Taro.

Japan got hit by a bigger tsunami then that in 1993. In fact, 34 feet as a defensive measure is actually kind of low when you look at record tsunamis. The earthquakes size was certainly impressive, but it wasn't necessary. You point out yourself that the wave had a hell of a lot of overage, so clearly there didn't need to be a once in a millenia even for this to occur. Please, all of you, just read what you're typing. Take five minutes, read it over, check wikipedia, and then make sure it all lines up.

Well it's fear mongering alright.
The levels of radiation are safe enough to eat. It's just worrying that the trout and cod all have some level of radiation directly linked to the Nuclear plant.

Lynata wrote:"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."

There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.

This right here, fething brilliant. I think this thread has been won.

biccat wrote:

Lynata wrote:"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."

There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.

This right here, fething brilliant. I think this thread has been won.

AustonT wrote:
Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?

This realistic.

You are quite right. For ancient middle east folk they are too overly Causasian, have overly bright washed clothes with even dyes, and there is no saddle strap showing. You can also tell from the shadows that the sun is at the wrong angle for Jesus to be entering Jerusalem from the Golden Gate in the morning, which is in the middle of the east wall.

Very sloppy.

AustonT wrote:You are delusional. Tepco built a 16ft wall and was hit by a 48ft wave. "A few feet higher" My arse. Did you perhaps mean "if they built it twice as tall" hmm I wonder if that would have worked.

No, actually I meant meters - my bad. I'm not even sure why I wrote feet there as I don't use the Imperial system myself; must be the "British" factor of this forum/franchise.
Then again, if the inner wall was 34 feet high, it still isn't wrong, is it?

Also: http://www.mining.com/2012/04/02/sense-of-duty-prevented-another-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
This is how you prevent a catastrophe. Makes you wonder what would've happened if this guy hadn't prevailed, doesn't it?

AustonT wrote:Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?

So ... you're saying that there is nothing that can be done to make nuclear power plants safe?

No, wait - in fact, you'd be right in this. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. So maybe it'd be better if people would simply stay away at least from stuff that isn't absolutely necessary but comes with such a hefty risk that even our children and grandchildren would have to pay for our mistakes.

Frazzled wrote:There is evidence that at one point in the Earth's history, it rained methane. Should they have prepared for that as well?

Well, there is a difference between a past stage of this world and a recurring event of contemporary times.
But feel free to sell all your winter clothes. After all, just because there's evidence that it has gotten really cold in one of the last years doesn't mean that it's bound to happen again.

AustonT actually makes a (somewhat) valid point regarding the meteor-proofing, though. Earth is overdue to being hit by an asteroid as well. Of course, given that we are speaking of timetables that stretch millions of years instead of just hundreds, the variance is quite a bit larger and there is no actual reason for alarm. Doesn't mean we shouldn't put some money into the space program tho. Would suck if mankind would go extinct in 50 years just because nobody bothered to research a viable space laser in 10.

Hands up if you're a Wargamer with NO CONCEPT OF PROBABILITY.

Awesome.

A 1 in 1000 year event does NOT mean that things are "due to happen". This does not happen any more than you being "due to roll a 6+ armour save because you failed the last five"

@Lynata

You seriously make my head hurt. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old). There will be no headway here. Good luck to you. I'm truly sorry that people like you have prevented further development of what is already an extremely safe and far less ecologically damaging source of energy than the main one currently in use.

Frankly most arguments against nuclear power are largely irrelevant. The price has already been paid, nuclear power exists, waste exist, the waste will be toxic for a long time and will need to be reused or hidden away nice and safe. We must make sure we have the infrastructure to maintain that or we are in for a nasty future.

If for example Japan was to stop using nuclear power, the contaminated materials would still be around and dangerous hundreds of years in the future, wheras the power would not be available. Reactors generate waste, but they also consume waste, fuel recycling and reuse is a key part of nuclear power.

Besides its a global problem. By investing in the nuclear industry we are gambling that we can sustain the infrastructure to contain the waste for the duration of its half life. The time to say no to nuclear power was the 50's, and then we had no choices as TPTB wanted reactors to make stuff to fill rockets.

Enjoy the cheap energy, build deeper mineshafts for the waste and stop dropping old submarine reactor cores in the oceans. That right there is the real ticking bomb.

Hulksmash wrote:
. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old).

I came to the same conclusion

Bluefin tuna record Fukushima radioactivity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18239107

Path of tsunami debris mapped out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17122155

Hulksmash wrote:@Lynata
You seriously make my head hurt. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old).

Funny, that's how I feel debating this topic with ardent defenders of nuclear power, too.

But yes, further discussion would seem to be irrelevant. It appears the two of us have read a sufficient amount of material to form a rather solid opinion that is unlikely to change - at least we can agree on that.

Orlanth wrote:Frankly most arguments against nuclear power are largely irrelevant. The price has already been paid, nuclear power exists, waste exist, the waste will be toxic for a long time and will need to be reused or hidden away nice and safe. We must make sure we have the infrastructure to maintain that or we are in for a nasty future.

Is that a reason to just continue fething up the ecosystem, though? "The damage has been done, let's just go on and pray it doesn't get worse."

The price hasn't been paid. The price goes up, year by year, the more waste is produced, the more regions of the world get contaminated by nuclear incidents, and the more people's health gets affected by its effects. Every generation will have a higher price to pay. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to this.

Also, disposal of nuclear waste is a little more complicated than just throwing the barrels down into a deep hole. Germany has been looking for a suitable "final depository" for 20 years now, but all sites investigated so far were considered unsafe because containment of the radioactive material couldn't be guaranteed. Actually, tectonic movement, leakage and air conditions become more unsafe the deeper you drill, and there's a big risk with the ground water getting contaminated. Ironically, it's far safer to store radioactive waste in the plants themselves rather than dumping it elsewhere, because at least here you'd be able to continuously monitor the condition of its containers.
Maybe in 50-100 years we'll be able to shoot this stuff into the sun. That would be the only safe method of disposal.

Orlanth wrote:Enjoy the cheap energy, build deeper mineshafts for the waste and stop dropping old submarine reactor cores in the oceans. That right there is the real ticking bomb.

It's not "cheap energy" when you add the cost of clean-up to the bill, be it for Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Asse II. And that's just the major feth-ups. Of course, this is just money that has to be paid by the taxpayer, not the corporations... who couldn't even afford it.
Hell, it's not even "cheap" (compared to some of the more modern solutions such as hydro or geothermal) when you'd just add all the actual cost such as mining, transportation, refits, construction and decommissioning on top of day-to-day operations. I did notice that a lot of pro-nuclear websites hide these numbers from their "calculations", and this is several billions of dollars. Much of it in subsidies.

Well, let me rephrase that - it's "cheap" when you're counting only what you pay on your electricity bill. An arbitrary number that, by now, has little to do with the actual cost of this energy source and which only serves to finance the operator's continued existence. I assume mankind has simply miscalculated; nuclear power wouldn't be so prominent today if the companies back then had known what would happen over the decades. Now they only want to protect their investments, naturally.

AustonT wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:
. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old).

I came to the same conclusion

Because you were arguing against a fish in a barrel rather than anything relating to a realistic or measured argument (and you wouldn't respond to me ).

Reading this thread reminded me why I hate hippies.

Nuclear power.. there is no energy problem.

mattyrm wrote: Reading this thread reminded me why I hate hippies.

Nuclear power.. there is no energy problem.

Reading this article reminded me why I hate people who have a poor grasp of history, logical theory, or basic physics but still like to shout for their team. Everyone taking sides in this debate is wrong about something in their posts since taking a side requires a certain lack of knowledge concerning the subject matter.

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Reading this thread reminded me why I hate hippies.

Nuclear power.. there is no energy problem.

Reading this article reminded me why I hate people who have a poor grasp of history, logical theory, or basic physics but still like to shout for their team. Everyone taking sides in this debate is wrong about something in their posts since taking a side requires a certain lack of knowledge concerning the subject matter.

Reading this thread reminded me of that old song, Radioactive.

Metro 2033 anyone?

Lynata wrote:

dæl wrote:I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.

True. Granted, "saving money" may happen under government authority as well (tight budgets? internal issues?) but it is notably less likely to happen. Personally, I am of the opinion that any such basic necessities should be run/provided by the state, but people would probably regard that as "communist".

AustonT wrote:Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.

It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.

When dealing with a force as dangerous as this, I daresay that inability to withstand natural phenomena or human error is "fail", as both of these WILL occur, at some time, on some day.

tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.

Also, like the vast majority of nuclear power plants, Fukushima too did have minor incidents even before the big accident of 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi#Incidents_and_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini#1989_incident

Now, this is nothing serious, but it goes to show that things have never been running smoothly. There are German power plants with an even more impressive/scary track record, though. Globally, there's a looong list of incidents available for a long list of nuclear plants. Most of it just doesn't become breaking news because the operators managed to get it back under control and/or because of a cover-up. For Fukushima, we now know that warnings from safety inspectors were ignored and their reports locked away simply because they were "inconvenient". The old energy control commission in Japan was directly subservient to the Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry, which was naturally more interested in a booming economy than regulating the power companies.

In the end, I guess you could say that the technology itself is not to blame. Humanity is simply unable to use it properly.

I really have to disagree with the statement of "Fukushima and Chernobyl weren't really that different."

What a load of horse pooey. I don't work in this industry, but I have done a fair amount of reading regarding the failure of Chernobyl.

Firstly, it was a first generation reactor, which were incredibly unsafe. Think of a prototype, with relatively few engineered safeguards in place. Second, the amount of human error involved which made Chernobyl happen was it's main cause. During the test, which subsequently caused the accident, they not only turned off the turbine which was the backup to prevent such a incident, they did a freaking shift change, without informing the new shift of what what had occurred in the test. Also, they didn't know about the problem within a timely manner because of a faulty warning system in the control room. If this had been working properly, they well would have had enough time to prevent the disaster.

The type of Fukushima reactor is 'a BWR Mark 1' designed and built by General Electric in the 60's and 70's. GE Hitachi Nuclear released a statement as to the reliability of the design, and how heavily used these 'workhorse' reactors are. Granted it is a press release from the company refuting claims. You can bet your paycheck this reactor was not of the same generation as Chernobyl.

Link to the article from GE Hitachi Nuclear: http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us?lite

Also, in the top of the article GE Hitachi Nuclear states: "The NRC database of nuclear power plants shows that 23 of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. are GE boiling-water reactors with GE's Mark I systems for containing radioactivity, the same containment system used by the reactors in trouble at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.

You can also do more research on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commissions website, where they list every reactor in the US, and its associated information, even inspection reports , for every reactor, which were conducted shortly after The Fukushima incident.

I cannot understand how people can be so hyper-sensitive to the potential of negative consequences from nuclear energy, and at the same time almost completely indifferent the real and very immediate negative consequences of generating energy from coal.

Lynata wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Frankly most arguments against nuclear power are largely irrelevant. The price has already been paid, nuclear power exists, waste exist, the waste will be toxic for a long time and will need to be reused or hidden away nice and safe. We must make sure we have the infrastructure to maintain that or we are in for a nasty future.

Is that a reason to just continue fething up the ecosystem, though? "The damage has been done, let's just go on and pray it doesn't get worse."

The price hasn't been paid. The price goes up, year by year, the more waste is produced, the more regions of the world get contaminated by nuclear incidents, and the more people's health gets affected by its effects. Every generation will have a higher price to pay. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to this.

Evidently you don't understand.

1. The actual volumes of high toxicity waste is actually rather small by volume. Got a facility capable of storing some, and it is likely able to store a whole lot more. Waste is here to stay, whether we stop now or never the same facilities must be constructed, expanding the volume of waste containment facilities is hump change compared to providing them to begin with.

2. The worst waste can normally by recycled and reused providing extra power and absorbing a large portion of the waste. This function is lost if the hippies and hysteria struck envirolobbyists get their way. Here let the boffins explain it to you:

Why it is ignorant to fully stop civil/commercial nuclear programs:

Over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.

In the last decade interest has grown in recovering all long-lived actinides together (i.e. with plutonium) so as to recycle them in fast reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products. This policy is driven by two factors: reducing the long-term radioactivity in high-level wastes, and reducing the possibility of plutonium being diverted from civil use – thereby increasing proliferation resistance of the fuel cycle. If used fuel is not reprocessed, then in a century or two the built-in radiological protection will have diminished, allowing the plutonium to be recovered for illicit use (though it is unsuitable for weapons due to the non-fissile isotopes present).

Nice. Not turning off the reactors allows us to reduce high level waste by 80% and reduce long term toxicity of said waste. This is better than I expected.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

sebster wrote:I cannot understand how people can be so hyper-sensitive to the potential of negative consequences from nuclear energy, and at the same time almost completely indifferent the real and very immediate negative consequences of generating energy from coal.

It's the horse blinders.

Fusion power would be our salvation, once we enter the Hydrgen age all things will be golden.
We need to put the sun in a box, the hard part is building said box.

Well if it works, if it isn't horrendously expensive, and if the fuel is common, then it could be. If so, I'm for an Apollo style program converting the US economy to a hydrogen/fusion economy within 5 years.

VermGho5t wrote:I really have to disagree with the statement of "Fukushima and Chernobyl weren't really that different."
What a load of horse pooey. I don't work in this industry, but I have done a fair amount of reading regarding the failure of Chernobyl. [...]

I have read and watched a rather large amount of information about Chernobyl as well. Thanks for reiterating what I already knew, though.

As mentioned earlier (perhaps you've only skimmed through this thread and did not see those posts), the relationship I was referring to was that in both cases, human error as well as technical shortcomings were involved.
Human Error: For Chernobyl it was people pushing the wrong buttons at the wrong time. For Fukushima it was people neglecting safety regulations and their own projections.
Technical Shortcomings: You've already listed those for Chernobyl. For Fukushima, see ShumaGorath's first post on this page.

VermGho5t wrote:GE Hitachi Nuclear released a statement as to the reliability of the design, and how heavily used these 'workhorse' reactors are. Granted it is a press release from the company refuting claims. You can bet your paycheck this reactor was not of the same generation as Chernobyl.

I don't see how a valid defense could be made in any case. Either the company admits the reactor was unsafe, hence confirming they were greedy feths who disregarded safety regulations because they only cared for money, or the company admits that the reactor was regarded as safe as per the enforced standards, hence confirming once more that such statements about safety from energy companies and governments are a load of crap.

Of course, today we already know that both the company and the governmental organisation that was supposed to police the reactors were engaged in neglecting their duties due to nothing other than monetary concerns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html

sebster wrote:I cannot understand how people can be so hyper-sensitive to the potential of negative consequences from nuclear energy, and at the same time almost completely indifferent the real and very immediate negative consequences of generating energy from coal.

It's because immediate negative consequences from coal are (one should assume) so easily detected and acted upon, and are focused on a much smaller scale. Aftereffects of incidents caused by nuclear power, however, often take a much greater amount of time to even be detected - and can be felt by generations to come. How many decades did it take for anyone to notice that a US town in the vicinity of a uranium mine had a 30% (!) cancer rate amongst its entire population, for example?

Also, since when does opposing nuclear power equal supporting coal power? There are far safer and cheaper alternatives available. Suggesting I'm "almost completely indifferent" against the consequences of coal is a low blow, when this is no longer even worthy of being discussed. Nuclear is where the debate is at, this is where people cannot agree on whether it's good or bad.

Surtur wrote:

Spoiler:

Like most people here, you seem to believe that there is such a thing as a "safe" amount of radiation.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/health_effects.html#anyamount

How much is a "maximum yearly dosage" worth, anyways, when governments raise them as soon as the people are subjected to a higher amount? Seems pretty arbitrary.

But yes, the dosage received whilst spending time on the grounds of the Chernobyl plant does vary wildly. Ironically, the ground surface contamination is "relatively" low, but high amounts persist in stuff like fir needles or animal fur. I've seen a travel report once, and visitors were warned to not in any case touch one of the stray animals still to be found in the area, and to stay away from the trees. Needless to say, the immediate surroundings of the sarcophagus are a no-go zone, too.

Orlanth wrote:The actual volumes of high toxicity waste is actually rather small by volume. Got a facility capable of storing some, and it is likely able to store a whole lot more.

Duh. Any facility "can" store high toxicity waste, even your garage. The tricky thing is safety - preventing the stuff from leaking out and contaminating the environment. Evidently you haven't read much about this, but that could be a result of it simply not being as much of a big topic in the US as it was in Germany after people/the media found out what happened in Asse II.

Orlanth wrote:The worst waste can normally by recycled and reused providing extra power and absorbing a large portion of the waste. This function is lost if the hippies and hysteria struck envirolobbyists get their way. Here let the boffins explain it to you:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ieer-french-style-nuclear-reprocessing-will-not-solve-us-nuclear-waste-problems-90233522.html

But hey, maybe it's just a lie from the "hippies and hysteria struck envirolobbyists"! After all, the source you quoted might be a completely objective and unbiased and ... oh, wait.

Orlanth wrote:http://www.world-nuclear.org

You're aware that this is a lobby website that churns out propaganda like there being no increased risk of cancer from exposure to radiation of up to 260 mSv? Even the rather conservative statements of the UN would label this as a blatant lie.
I wonder what you'd say if I would have quoted a Greenpeace website, though.

Go on believing I don't understand. With the material you are basing your opinion on, I don't think there is much of a point in discussing this further.

PS: I think the website you quoted would be funnier if they'd change their counter to something like "this uninsured industry has worked X days without causing a major catastrophe that cost the taxpayer billions of dollars".