Radioactive waste heading our way? (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Radioactive waste heading our way?
11:40am Thursday 17th December 2009 in News
RADIOACTIVE waste from the controversial Sellafield nuclear plant is set to be disposed of in Hampshire, the Daily Echo can reveal.
Under a proposal out to consultation today, ten trucks a year would make the 350- mile journey from Cumbria to an incinerator in Fawley, on the edge of the New Forest.
Each truck would carry about 40 barrels of low-level radioactive waste oil to the Spanish-owned facility.
Up to 100 cubic metres of radioactive waste would be sent to Hampshire each year, a spokesman for Sellafield said.
The radioactive waste consists of contaminated lubricate, hydraulic and engine oils from the Cumbrian site.
The first load, which is likely to travel down the busy M3, M27 and A326, could arrive as early as next spring.
Comments(31)
rjfmusic
says...
12:44pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Andy Locks Heath
says...
12:55pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Mick99
says...
12:55pm Thu 17 Dec 09
rjfmusic wrote:So you'd rather the Echo didn't report a proposal that is out to consultation? And that they just wait until after the nuclear waste starts arriving in Fawley? Do you actually know what "news" is?
Come on Echo, tell us some real news, not just possibilities!
Jammy Donut
says...
1:01pm Thu 17 Dec 09
goard
says...
1:35pm Thu 17 Dec 09
goard
Andy Locks Heath
says...
1:59pm Thu 17 Dec 09
goard wrote:Goard, do you realise that none of your posts ever make any sense?
Obviously, we see a dangerous scenario. BUT can we include our councillors - or do they fear, as much as I do, the highjacking of decent survival. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the traitor of them all?
goard
southy
says...
2:08pm Thu 17 Dec 09
if this stuff is so safe, why dont they deal with it on site of the nuclear power station. it would work out cheaper in the long run.
A Upton
says...
2:40pm Thu 17 Dec 09
goard
says...
3:16pm Thu 17 Dec 09
goard
southy
says...
3:35pm Thu 17 Dec 09
A Upton wrote:there is no real low safe level. even luminous paint will cause cancer. can radiation be incinerated, or will the radiation be pump into the air while they burn of the oil.
It might reassure people if the words "low-level" were printed as LOW-LEVEL". It immediately catches the eye and you can be assured that the dose levels are insignificant and incineration is a safer method of disposal than storage. When I was a classified radiation worker in the Royal Navy Submarine Service, this type of waste can be simply protective clothing beyond it's useful life or insignificant waste from a particular electrical, mechanical or cleaning task. It is probably less hazardous than some of the unlabeled waste that people leave out for landfill collection, like unused paint.
espanuel
says...
3:49pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Waysider
says...
4:06pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Redback
says...
4:42pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Lone Ranger
says...
5:01pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Andy Locks Heath
says...
5:18pm Thu 17 Dec 09
southy wrote:Yes there is. What you are assuming is what we used to call the Linear-No-Threshold theory of ionisation. In fact there is no evidence that low level doses of radiation cause any harm at all, which is just as well because you and everyone else is being bombarded with particles and /or waves every second of your life. Also there are different forms of radiation and not all are particularly harmful
A Upton wrote:there is no real low safe level. even luminous paint will cause cancer. can radiation be incinerated, or will the radiation be pump into the air while they burn of the oil.
It might reassure people if the words "low-level" were printed as LOW-LEVEL". It immediately catches the eye and you can be assured that the dose levels are insignificant and incineration is a safer method of disposal than storage. When I was a classified radiation worker in the Royal Navy Submarine Service, this type of waste can be simply protective clothing beyond it's useful life or insignificant waste from a particular electrical, mechanical or cleaning task. It is probably less hazardous than some of the unlabeled waste that people leave out for landfill collection, like unused paint.
TBH I don't know why this is not incinerated on site Southy - I doubt if there is anything sinister though - it is probably that the volumes of waste could not justify the cost of the high tech incineration plant they have at Re-chem or whatever it is called it now. High temperatures do have a modifying effect on ionising radiation and whatever goes up the stack will be well under background radiation levels or they would not be allowed to burn it. The NRPB would see to that.
happysaint
says...
7:07pm Thu 17 Dec 09
rjfmusic wrote:read pompey news then .or dont read this at all, its your choise it doe's my head in when i see thing like this
Come on Echo, tell us some real news, not just possibilities!
forest hump
says...
7:25pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Andy Locks Heath wrote:Andy,
southy wrote:Yes there is. What you are assuming is what we used to call the Linear-No-Threshold theory of ionisation. In fact there is no evidence that low level doses of radiation cause any harm at all, which is just as well because you and everyone else is being bombarded with particles and /or waves every second of your life. Also there are different forms of radiation and not all are particularly harmful TBH I don't know why this is not incinerated on site Southy - I doubt if there is anything sinister though - it is probably that the volumes of waste could not justify the cost of the high tech incineration plant they have at Re-chem or whatever it is called it now. High temperatures do have a modifying effect on ionising radiation and whatever goes up the stack will be well under background radiation levels or they would not be allowed to burn it. The NRPB would see to that.A Upton wrote: It might reassure people if the words "low-level" were printed as LOW-LEVEL". It immediately catches the eye and you can be assured that the dose levels are insignificant and incineration is a safer method of disposal than storage. When I was a classified radiation worker in the Royal Navy Submarine Service, this type of waste can be simply protective clothing beyond it's useful life or insignificant waste from a particular electrical, mechanical or cleaning task. It is probably less hazardous than some of the unlabeled waste that people leave out for landfill collection, like unused paint.there is no real low safe level. even luminous paint will cause cancer. can radiation be incinerated, or will the radiation be pump into the air while they burn of the oil.
totally agree with your posts. Clear and objective as always. As you rightly say, this is just another example of our beloved media (and all form a guilty) trying to whip up a frenzy and sell papers. This plant has been disposing (safely) all types of hazardous waste for years. You are probably more at risk from a garden bonfire.
I probably think the reason that they do not dispose onsite is cost driven. To become an established toxic waste handler/disposer involves lenghty and costly procedures. Sellafield (I think it might still be part of BNFL) could not do this in a cost effective manner. As with most services now, contracting out is the norm.
southy
says...
8:36pm Thu 17 Dec 09
and like you said andy there are many different types off radiation. all have different levels for a safe limit that we can get away with most of the time, also that level will change from person to person
its a bit like when people go sun bathing, why do some go brown straight away, while others go red first before going brown and some just go red. human tolerance are different from people to people.
warness
says...
9:10pm Thu 17 Dec 09
You strive to be recognised as a knowledgable fellow, using phrases like "the Linear-No-Threshold theory of ionisation"
Are you out of work at the moment? or does your low self-esteem come from childhood experiences?
stickymcglue
says...
9:15pm Thu 17 Dec 09
southy
says...
9:33pm Thu 17 Dec 09
stickymcglue wrote:and there's a ban on building on any area in cornwall where this natural gas radiation is located. that was all stop a while back.
there is more radiation from granite in cornwall that occurs naturally than level one waste.... if we lived in a semi-educated country than that would amount to something,,, but hey-hoo ,,,,, england it is ! LOL
freemantlegirl2
says...
10:08pm Thu 17 Dec 09
Lone Ranger wrote:LOL, thanks LR that gave me a much needed laugh :D
Lets face it if there is a small spillage you wont need lights on your bike
As for the rest of you... handbags ladies...pick them up and give it a rest....
Andy Locks Heath
says...
10:33pm Thu 17 Dec 09
To help Warness with his/her/its amateur psychology studies I am comfortably self employed, probably because I am no longer in the nuclear industry. I wish it were not so, because it is the best hope we have for producing clean, safe and - most important of all - reliable quantities of electricity.
now in the north
says...
10:48pm Thu 17 Dec 09
thesotonsaint
says...
8:59am Fri 18 Dec 09
Redback wrote:Me too Redback, i'm going to take my pet snake down there and become snake man...............
I'm really looking forward to it. Can't wait to develop super-powers.
cygnus
says...
9:43am Fri 18 Dec 09
If the levels were too high they wouldn't allow them off their site for H&S concerns. Let alone allow a driver to move the goods for over 350 miles from site to site.
I'd better get back to licking my watch face and hugging that old smoke alarm(co-incidentall
y have active levels)
southy
says...
1:19pm Fri 18 Dec 09
cygnus wrote:no new jobs, they be using the people they got.
I welcome this, it'll create a few more jobs in the area and a select few will be properly trained to handle the active goods.
If the levels were too high they wouldn't allow them off their site for H&S concerns. Let alone allow a driver to move the goods for over 350 miles from site to site.
I'd better get back to licking my watch face and hugging that old smoke alarm(co-incidentall
y have active levels)
they move radioactive rods by road and rail. so levels dont really come into it, H&S will only stop the movement if health or safety is being compromised.
and licking a luminous painted watch or clock face is not a good idea, unless you want to increase your chances of getting mouth or throat cancer. like those poor women did in the usa and they was just painting the clocks faces with luminous paint. but hugging a smoke alarm should be ok seeing it is really low level and of a different type of radioactivity
Redback
says...
3:41pm Fri 18 Dec 09
thesotonsaint wrote:I'm hoping for invisibility.
Redback wrote: I'm really looking forward to it. Can't wait to develop super-powers.Me too Redback, i'm going to take my pet snake down there and become snake man...............
-
Next time Rashida Jones takes a shower, she'll never know I'm there.... lol
Redback
says...
7:42pm Fri 18 Dec 09
-
Does the echo realise that their reporter on this page appears to find criminal damage amusing? She's quite clearly finding it hard not to laugh when talking about 'a concrete slab...'.
-
The case itself is irrelevant. Her glee is entirely unprofessional. To be honest, it's bordering on being worth a complaint to the IPCC.
Redback
says...
10:59am Sat 19 Dec 09
teh says...
12:26pm Thu 17 Dec 09