-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Gp-energy] Nuclear Waste
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:57:04 +0000
From: Adrian Williams <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
If you read the rest of the letter from the two academic geologists you can
see that they think the problem is soluble and they want the Govt to get on
with it. They do not appear to be antinuclear.
"...technical understanding of deep and permanent disposal of waste has
advanced, with some other countries already moving ahead to build deep
repositories for the most dangerous waste."
The nuclear industry thinks they know what to do with waste:
reduce volume, enclose in ceramic or concrete inside stainless steel and
bury it in a stable rock.
Antinulear arguments have to be more varied than saying this problem is
insoluble.
Adrian Williams
>From: Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:03:59 +0000
>
>Nuclear Waste
>
>The Independent is right to highlight radioactive waste when new nuclear
>power stations are being considered (report, 24 January). However, it is
>important to manage existing waste safely, irrespective of any future
>nuclear build, and this is something that we have so far failed to do to a
>spectacular degree. Letter from Prof Yardley and Prof Peter Styles of the
>Geological Society of London.
>
>Independent 26th January 2006
>
>http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article341009.ece
_______________________________________________
Gp-energy mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gp-energy
|