How else would you shield nuclear waste? It's just comparing apples with apples. I guess the ideal solution is to use a synthetic borosilicate glass for mid level wastes.

That stuff is very low risk. It's about as immobilised as you can get - and that's why I objected to  Chimp's proclamation that it was technologically impossible to treat nuclear waste.
It's expensive, but not prohibitively expensive. The problem there, is not with the Nuclear industry, which like any industry will avoid expensive solutions. The problem is with the regulator, which for various reasons avoids prescriptive legislation.

There are also many ways available to concentrate low level radioactive waste to reduce volumes, and to encapsulate it safely to avoid exposure.

Look, in Australia, nuclear energy is not going to happen and personally I'd rather see solar projects in a country where we have an abundance of that particular resource. However it must be said that in other parts of the world it has been very successful. (for example France)

Maybe we won't even need the revolution if we are all killed off naturally.


Plumes of mysterious steam rise from crippled nuclear reactor at Fukushima

Fresh plumes of most probably radioactive steam have been detected rising from the reactor 3 building at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, said the facility’s operator company.

The steam was first spotted on December 19 for a short period of time, then again on December 24, 25, 27, according to a report TEPCO published on its website.

The company, responsible for the cleanup of the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, has not explained the source of the steam or the reason it is rising from the reactor building. High levels of radiation have complicated entry into the building and further inspection of the situation.

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-steam-nuclear-reactor-064/


Meanwhile, back at the plant.....


Japan's homeless 'recruited' for cleaning up Fukushima nuclear plant


Homeless men are being recruited for one of the most unwanted jobs in the industrialized world - clearing of radioactive fallout at the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl - the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, a special report has claimed.

The headhunter supplies homeless people to contractors in the nuclear disaster zone for a reward of $100 per head.

"This is how labor recruiters like me come in every day," Sasa explained, walking past the destitute sleeping on cardboard in the winter cold, on the lookout for those who have

nothing left to lose.

http://rt.com/news/homeless-recruited-fukushima-nuclear-965/

Grey wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:53pm:



There is no such thing as shielded thoroughly.

I'll respond when I can. I don't have as much spare time these days.

# wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:


You're a dishonest fraud. Not confused at all just wanting you to define the scientific basis of ":It seems to me" and "for mine" as these are terms that oddly enough don't come up in scientific papers. You might like to answer a question yourself. Blah, Blah, Blah...."97% of the World's Climate Scientists support AGW". You have a funny idea of what constitutes the world and the validity of selectively sent (so not random) volunteer surveys. What proportion came from the USA and Canada?

namnugenot wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 11:47am:


Surveys can be used to support just about any conclusion (if one does enough of them, pre-load the questions and select favourable demographics etc)

In the USA for example a petition was circulating that had 37,000 signatures of scientists who disputed the science of AGW and climate change.

Sounds impressive?

Not really.

There are at least 7 million US civilians with degrees in science, and a big proportion of these are employed by fossil fuel industry and many of its spin off industries such as the vehicle sector etc.

That survey turned out to be an internal petition within the fossil fuel industry so 37,000 signatures isn't that meaningful. It would be like asking scientists within the environmental movement whether forests should be cleared for mining etc.

Surveys can be carried out using fundamental scientific, psychological and statistical principles incorporating random samples of meaningful size.

The other approach to take is to look at the official position of the major scientific organisations, societies, associations and Universities, research organisations etc.

You will find that in today's world there isn't one major scientific organisation that refutes the science that underpins AGW and climate change.

And most importantly ALL the fossil fuel related corporations have recognised the linked between human induced rising CO2 levels and global warming.

I suggest that you dig up the joint public declaration made by the major global fossil fuel corporations in the early 2000s (roughly 2003). Not only did they publically recognise the dangers of AGW but they recommended urgent action on a global level to mitigate the effects of climate change.

(And of course these corporate giants already knew from their own internal technical departments and research, that AGW was a serious issue. Through various pressure points, which included their own shareholders, they were compelled to make a joint public statement.)