nuclear-news

Short term approach to nuclear wastes masks reality of the problem

as the world’s nuclear military powers are discovering the costs continue after the submarines and power stations have been decommissioned from active service. The equipment and reactors cannot easily or cheaply be dismantled and will remain radioactive for hundreds of years

Nuclear and radioactive waste disposal – by Patrick Boniface – Helium, 30 May 2010, Nuclear waste is dangerously toxic, its environmental impact if released would be devastating, as was witnessed during both the Chernobyl explosion, the American Three Mile Island scare and the Windscale fire of 1957.In these cases radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. With the Windscale fire some 15,000 terabequerels (TBq) of radioactive material (notably Iodine-131) were released (3).

A report compiled by Crick & Linsley in 1983 estimated that 260 people would eventually die from dieases, such as thyroid cancers, related to the release of the material during the fire, (4).

Other aspects that environmentalist’s voice concerns over include the storage of spent nuclear fuels, from commercial nuclear reactors and increasingly from redundant nuclear warships such as submarines.

In particular in the former Soviet Union around the submarine base of Arkangel in Northern Russia there are around sixty nuclear submarines that are rotting away but still with large amounts of nuclear material contained within their hulls.

The Russian economy is unable to afford the costs of de-commissioning these submarines. The cost of decommissioning is between $100-300 million per submarine (5). Continue reading →

May 31, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear weapons, radioactive, reactors, uranium | Leave a comment