The UK nuclear reprocessing plant is at the top end of the lake district at Sellafield. It has a visitor centre, and is well worth a visit if you're near.
(The pencil museum at Keswick is also worth a visit, despite it sounding a silly idea.)
It is a long time ago I visited Seascale, probably 20 years, but at that time, our entire nuclear waste was about the size a pair of semi-detached houses. A huge amount, but small when compared with coal. (And coal slag heaps have killed, spectacularly)
At that time, we were encasing nuclear waste in glass and setting it onto the sea bed, but could be recovered in the future, they said.
Interestingly, they had three maps.
First was a map of all the locations in the UK deemed suitable for a nuclear energy plant.
Next was a map from the Leukaemia society, showing all the locations where leukaemia was higher than average.
They were almost the same map.
The third map was the sites actually used for nuclear energy plants, highlighting that there were leukaemia hotspots where no nuclear plant existed.
These were apparently to defend the plants, to show they are not the causes of leukaemia. (Although there was no mention that the plant may increase the risk, but that is another argument)
A logical conclusion is that whatever geographic conditions make it right for a plant, also make it susceptible to leukaemia. Something they claimed to be working on.
When nuclear fuel is 'spent' it is still highly radioactive, enough to do us harm, but not enough to efficiently produce energy. Hopefully sometime in the future we'll be able to harness that too, until the radioactivity levels are safe. Or we'll all glow in the dark, and no longer need lights at night.
(The pencil museum at Keswick is also worth a visit, despite it sounding a silly idea.)
It is a long time ago I visited Seascale, probably 20 years, but at that time, our entire nuclear waste was about the size a pair of semi-detached houses. A huge amount, but small when compared with coal. (And coal slag heaps have killed, spectacularly)
At that time, we were encasing nuclear waste in glass and setting it onto the sea bed, but could be recovered in the future, they said.
Interestingly, they had three maps.
First was a map of all the locations in the UK deemed suitable for a nuclear energy plant.
Next was a map from the Leukaemia society, showing all the locations where leukaemia was higher than average.
They were almost the same map.
The third map was the sites actually used for nuclear energy plants, highlighting that there were leukaemia hotspots where no nuclear plant existed.
These were apparently to defend the plants, to show they are not the causes of leukaemia. (Although there was no mention that the plant may increase the risk, but that is another argument)
A logical conclusion is that whatever geographic conditions make it right for a plant, also make it susceptible to leukaemia. Something they claimed to be working on.
When nuclear fuel is 'spent' it is still highly radioactive, enough to do us harm, but not enough to efficiently produce energy. Hopefully sometime in the future we'll be able to harness that too, until the radioactivity levels are safe. Or we'll all glow in the dark, and no longer need lights at night.