SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The Case for Nuclear Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: TimF10/8/2012 7:00:07 PM
1 Recommendation   of 312
 
Funny nuclear numbers
October 7th, 2012 · 5 Comments
One of these two numbers is wrong.

The politicians of Cumbria County Council have cooled on the idea of burying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste but a kilometre beneath their feet.

Initially tempted by the huge economic benefits a £12bn nuclear research and disposal would bring, councillors now seem dismayed that the waste wouldn’t be considered safe for another 100,000 years.

There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of low level nuclear waste. This is entirely true.

But it’s the high level (essentially, but not exclusively, the used fuel rods themselves) which “are not safe for 100,000 years”. Although it’s a very much shorter period than that for them to be less radioactive than the rock they were originally made from.

But there ain’t hundreds of thousands of tonnes of that high level waste. To get to that sort of weight you’ve got to include the bed linen used by people having certain radiotherapies etc. It just ain’t the same stuff at all.

timworstall.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News