Informing The Guardian about matters nuclear

So the Fukushima plant had more spent fuel lying around than it should have done did it?

When disaster struck earlier this month, the plant contained almost 4,000 uranium fuel assemblies kept in pools of circulating water – the equivalent of more than three times the amount of radioactive material usually kept in the active cores of the plant\’s reactors.

Hmm, I wonder why that might be?

So, anyone know where the Sons of Nippon reprocess their fuel rods?

Yes, that\’s right, at Sellafield. You know, the place in Cumbria?

The place that Greenpeace et al (at least if my memory is working well this early in the morning) have been shouting mustn\’t be allowed to do such reprocessing?

I have to admit that I\’m not quite sure whether Greenpeace et als various manouverings have managed to slow down or delay such reprocessing….or whether Sellafield\’s own management has managed that all by itself.

But the Japanese reactor companies have had contracts with Sellafield, Sellafield hasn\’t been working as advertised and the reason for stockpiles at reactors in Japan of spent fuel is probably that fact that Sellafield isn\’t working as advertised.

7 thoughts on “Informing The Guardian about matters nuclear”

  1. Our local expert on Fukushima, who craftily disguises himself as an “infectious diseases expret” presumably because he doesn’t want to show off about his vast stores of nuclear knowledge, told us today that the “swimming pools” at Fukushima had become radioactive. Well that’s how he was quoted anyway.

  2. although, to be fair I checked out his website and apparently a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs 1.8 mil. Checking elsewhere- prob more like 1.2 million, each. That’s pretty eye opening – I thought this Libya escapade was a BAD idea but Jesus they could rebuild my hospital out of gold and diamonds with all the treasure they are turning to scrap metal in North Africa.

  3. Using those Tomahawks in Libya isn’t costly to the public purse in so straightforward way. You see, the missiles have a “best-before” date, and when that approaches, you can either fire them out, or scrap them.

    So if you want to keep a stockpile of Tomahawks ready at hand, you’re paying a fixed (rather large) sum per year, and using the missiles that are outdating is only good for you because you get to train your staff in using them. The missiles would be spoiled anyway.

  4. Didn’t Greenpeace try and blockade ships carring fuel rods being transported to Sellafield for reprocessing?

  5. um yes pjt I follow your reasoning. However looking at the glorious recent history of the Western powers at war a significant downsizing of our entire military stock might be in order.

  6. ps I don’t know who they are shooting these missiles at (or why) but I think it’s safe to assume that innocent Libyans and their children are being killed by them. Training on non-human targets would probably be more ethical

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *