What you failed to add is the company who run the UK nuclear facilities is French and has been importing waste from the plants in France and failed to build the six new power stations they promised when they won the contract. Chernobyl was a gigantic mistake caused by shifts not handing over properly and tests being carried without authorisation, the chances of this happening in UK is slim and scaremongering by anti Nuclear groups does not help.
I work in nuclear and I regularly work with people who spend time on the Sellafield site. This is incredibly sensationalist journalism and they've made such little effort to conceal their agenda that it is just blatant fear mongering. To compare the waste in Sellafield (used fuel and low-level waste) to the Chernobyl power station (an active reactor packed with live fuel and the conditions for criticality) is ludicrous. Also the UK disposal project, has found 3 willing communities and huge amounts of studies have been put into the project to ensure it's safe. Nuclear isn't ideal but it's far better than coal and gas.
But all radiation is the same! Didn't you know that? A glove with a smudge of unpurified uranium salts on it is just as dangerous as a pure 1 gram sample of polonium-210, which is just as dangerous as soil contaminated with strontium-90. And we all know that your cell phone is far more dangerous than all of those sources put together. Never mind your microwave oven. That thing will give you radiation poisoning[sic] in a second without the lead shielding. [READ: IMPORTANT] This was (hopefully) obviously just a joke. But on the off chance someone took it seriously (you never know) nothing above was true.
This is what we need, more nuclear fear mongering. Let’s put scary music and stock footage together, compare it to Chernobyl-whether or not it’s accurate or relevant! There’s no reason to take this remotely seriously considering they’re clearly more interested in fancy graphics than accurate reporting.
Isn't it better to have thorough independent scrutiny and oversight of risks to health and life than to choose the path of complacency. Plus, has this Tory government given the British, European and global populations reasons to trust their professionalism and care for the safety of the population. I'd say not. Plus has our security agencies given us reason to trust what they say when they have been found to lie in the name of selling weapons for war and the destruction of other countries which creates further security risks. Sellafield needs huge public investment to provide security. The whole country needs huge public investment because the private enterprise that this government swears by can't deliver. Instead money is syphoned off by greed, and jobs such as building housing is done on the cheap with flammable materials as regulations are slashed. What I am saying is Sellafield is symptomatic of a wider problem with how Britain is governed, but is, as the presenter stated, the most dangerous industrial site in Europe as assessed by the body that oversees nuclear sites. By my judgement your comment oozes with stupidity or ignorance toward the office for nuclear regulation. If you read this, it wouldn't surprise me if you were part of the Conservative party who seem ooze with stupidity.
Agree. Chernobyl was an inherently poor reactor design deliberately driven into an unstable condition. There's absolutely *ZERO* comparison with any reactor in the UK.
@@mrb.5610and the Titanic was unsinkable. The fire at Windscale burned for three days and released radioactive fallout which spread across the UK and the rest of Europe.
This sounds very fear mongering to me. Just quick google search shows plutoniums half life is 24k years, so it remains radiocative a lot longer than that, and again with cyber security aspect their internal network that handles the nuclear waste is seperate from their general IT systems meaning no matter how much anyone tries they can't reach it without physically being there. I would love to know what nuclear physics and cyber security degrees the team has because my very limited knowledge on those 2 areas are ringing alarm bells in my head about the validity of this video. After a quick search neither Alex Lawson or Anna Isaac have the qualifications for a story like this.
It's not quite true to say Plutonium has a half life and will be around a lot longer. Half life means that 50% of the Plutonium isotope concerned will no longer be the same after the period. It will be a different element. Uranium is exactly the same. Since 24,000 is a short period any Plutonium present when the earth formed is gone into different elements by now. Different isotopes of the same element will have different half lives. The elements with the highest atomic weights and numbers have a greater number of isotopes.
Just report this as misinformation, cause it is misinformation / a journalist who is not informed well on her or his subject. And its only used to fearmonger against nuclear energy.
Simple: reprocess the Plutonium(Pu) and make electricity from that. It's what's in MOX nuclear fuel used in plants currently does. GEH has a plant (search for GEH PRISM) that can use Pu, and other actinides, from spent fuel from light-water reactors to generate electricity; it's not new technology either. Pu isn't waste, it's a valuable resource to generate huge amounts of CO2-free electricity while simultaneously cleaning up Sellafield.
Breathtakingly irresponsible journalism. The journalist's assertion that plutonium "remains radioactive for 24,000 years" shows they don't even understand the most fundamental concept of half-life.
Imagine the horror when they realise that uranium which is still radioactive has been on the planet since it formed. Even worse, the lead in car batteries will at least in part be a radioactive ☢️ by product from natural sources. There's also radioactive radon being released in various places and that may even cross to Ireland from the UK! The lack of proper education in sciences for 30yrs is taking its toll.
Well it's true. It's actually much longer than that. But that (true) snippet is more impactful than a longer explanation that we're all radioactive for ever....
Lol, I'm old enough to remember, people dropping dead on the streets of China a few years ago, who's seen it happen in the UK 🤔🤔🤔 Not at all, plenty of people dying from "suddenly" and "unexpectedly" though, I miss actual cause of death being printed
They totally missed to explain (intentionally) that spent nuclear fuel (which is the most dangerous one) aka high-level waste, it’s just a small 3% of all the nuclear waste we produce. 90% percent is just lightly-contaminated materials like working cloths and similar. Goelogical repository IS the only solution. Spent nuclear fuel being a mere 3% means we accepted to juggle it around for a little longer until someone with enough will, will start digging underground these geological repository (like in Finland)
Is that relevant to anything in the video? And they did mention the need to bury the waste, which I think is what you're saying that they didn't explain. But, again, that wasn't the point the video was making.
Spent nuclear fuel is actually pretty safe. It contains high active and medium active waste together in a solid form and is stable to store. The problem is when it is reprocessed and the high active waste is separated out. The high active waste is then in a liquid form and is difficult to contain. This is where the vitrification idea came in. I am not sure if this technique has been perfected yet. I can only hope so.
As someone who has a physics degree and has worked at Sellafield before, this is complete nonsense and portrayed in a way to elicit a certain response from a viewer whom doesn't know any better.
Which parts were nonsense , specifically ? It's a nuclear site , risks and threats are always there , no ? I've worked there before too and i met a lot of really dense and incompetent people , the site itself constantly fails on it's targets and shows incompetence in many areas also mistakes , accidents or sabotage is always possible , no ?
@@tabularasa7775 Have you really worked there? I could claim I have worked at the Guardian and its full of a lot of really dense and incompetent people, and is supported by kickbacks from the renewable industry. As it happens I wont lie, but I am fairly sure that big money, not a desire to expose the truth, is behind this 'exposé'...
Is it just me or am I no better of than before I watched the video? Non of this was news or unexpected. They way it was titled was if they had some kind of expose to say? Or am I wrong?
False news regurgitated to scare people can you please explain specifically what's the problem, its a nuclear storage facility. Well protected and audited to the highest safety criteria. End off
Do they even know what they're talking about? At 03:20 in, she says that Plutonium "remains radioactive for 24,000 years". Well, Pu-239 has a half-life of about 24,100 years, which is I guess where they got the number from. But "half-life" and "remains radioactive" is not the same thing at all. What utter tosh.
I went there as a child. It was a museum, there was a huge planetarium inside. I don’t know if it’s still like this? But I was on holiday when we went there, the place was full of children looking around this huge interactive museum. The planetarium was amazing. I’ve never forgotten it.
The difference between sellafield and Chernobyl is that sellafield has more CONTAINED nuclear material while Chernobyl used to have nuclear material that then scattered all across Europe
Full of misinformation, sensationalism and fear mongering. This poor standard of journalism is shocking at such a crucial time for the future of energy and left me with no choice but to cancel my digital subscription.
I have so many issues with The Guardian that I am inclined to take this video with a shovel of salt. We need an independent investigation of Guardian’s investigation.
3:22 Pu-239 has a half life of 24,000 years. So any significant amount of it will be radioactive even after much much longer. So in about 100,000 years there will be still over 6% of it left.
Yep...she clearly has no understanding of half-life and the relatively low dangers of long half life isotopes. I'd quite happily hold a freshly cast block of weapons grade plutonium. However I'd be very concerned about breathing the air in a Cornish granite mine!
@@CatatonicImperfectIt's a different type of energy service. Nuclear power saves you having to buy energy storage, and lasts twice as long as a wind turbine or solar panel (60 years + for most nuclear power stations, under 30 for most green energy products). So neither is better or worse, there different solutions for different contexts/geographies.
"widely considered the most dangerous nuclear site in Europe" "a legacy of the UK trying to keep pace with the US and Russia" What a load of absolute bull.
imagine these people are supposed to keep a nuclear power plant safe they cant even install an anti virus software or a firewall what hope is there? total BS for whats about to become massive news and it involves Ukraine and Zelensky
In the up to date sites like Hinckley Point and Sizewell C, there is far less nuclear waste than in older sites!, and when the small modular reactors (SMR) come into play, then we should be energy efficient.
SMRs should be a total non starter - all the overhead and security issues of a nuclear site, multiplied many more times. If we are going down the road of nuclear, we should stick to as little a number of sites as we can. Use high voltage DC lines to transport the power to other parts of the country. If we had Gen IV breeder reactors that could burn up plutonium from Gen I-III reactors, fair enough, but Hinkley Point C is still a Gen III reactor that will generate marginally less nuclear waste than previous designs, but not much.
@@sanfrancrisko9962To correct your idea high voltage DC is not an efficient method of transmission of energy. The high school model of little balls called electrons flowing down a wire like a pipe isn't how it works. AC is more efficient for many reasons.
Depends. Plutonium is fine to be close to, but is extremely nasty if it gets inside you (in the lungs or through a cut on the skin). The Alpha radiation it gives off buggers up any cells it is close to very badly.
Sort of, Iodine-129 is the longest living fission products and it can pose a problem during reprocessing. All the short-lived elements are long gone by the time they reach Sellafield. But you're right, by far the greatest hazard is active reactors.
The anti nuclear power movement (as distinct from the anti nuclear weapons movement) would never have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for astroturfing by big oil, who had vested interest obviously in making sure that nuclear power never became the dominant form of power generation.
Questioning the safety of such an important infrastructure doesn't mean that we need to burn coal, it emphasizes that we need to be careful and to invest in nuclear safety.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. As over 98% of the CO2 in the air is produced by plants where is the proof its man made CO2 that is the trigger for global warming? I recall it was claimed only 20 years ago that the climate change and ice melting was due to holes in the Ozone Layer and driven by aerosol; that crisis seems to have been dropped now and its all CO2 !
@@susanb4816There are very few alternatives to nuclear power, coal and natural gas primarily, which are worse in every possible sense. Renewables *cannot* serve the same role as these stable and tunable sources. We need as much renewable energy as possible, and we need nuclear to fill its very real and obvious gaps. This irresponsible fear mongering absolutely does not promote renewables. It’s promoting coal and natural gas.
I especially loved the cloud of waste projected over Norway 4:52. A cursory glance at any weather system over the UK will show you that such a spread would be impossible. Strange that the two nations that worry about selafield, Norway and Ireland, are also anti-nuclear states!
Actually a nuclear explosion the magnitude of a power station going boom could cause a superheated pocket of rapidly rising air which could alter weather patterns locally. Look into the US HAARP weather control arrays that exist & DO work as designed.
Ireland aren't anti-nuclear. They are honest in their assessment that they couldn't run large nuclear facilities. But to be clear, despite no risk of a meltdown, there is still the possiblity of nuclear material becoming airborne from Sellafield and weather systems spreading that material.
Someone wants to check out the cancer rates & birth defects & infant deaths in the area. I have said that for years especially in the 70s & early 80s 😢
@@brutonstreettailor4570 Given its primary purpose shifted from the production of atomic weapons to reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel, it sort of makes sense.
Most of the waste is from the early magnox program, the current PWR reactors generate a far smaller volume of waste. Plutonium has a long half-life, so what? So do radioactive materials that are abundant in the earth's crust, and it's estimated that about half of the heat generated within the earth's core is due to reactive decay. This heat keeps the iron core molten and sustains the magnetosphere which deflects solar radiation and keeps us alive. Anyway, I thought global warming due to CO2 emissions was the critical global emergency?
Nothing new or especially interested. B30 for example is one of the most active parts of the site. They make it look like it's just being left to rot and nobody is doing anything about it.
I imagine the nuclear-phobic government may be a reason as to why upgrading the facility is difficult. Not much can be done about adversarial actors besides better cybersecurity so that isnt really "their" fault.
And I imagine drawing unnecessary attention to the Site (from potential hackers) will not be doing anyone any favours anyway. I'm fairly confident most plant control systems have their own internal networks that are not connected to the internet. The claims are completely spurious and found on little evidence.
I waited the whole video for the big reveal of these major safety fears. None were presented. Instead it turned out to just be a generic nuclear scare word jumble. Shame on you.
I spoke to someone working on the clean up and it's a forever '5 year' project which would see him to retirement. So they aren't being honest about the costs.
I live near Dungeness, and see its silhouette clearly whenever I go to Hythe or Folkestone. I'm quite chuffed that pylons lead from there to my area, and that the electricity I use produces zero CO2.
As a Guardian reader I find this embarrassing. A series of sensationalist headlines trotted out about unrelated elements of an enormous site. Right of reply limited to tacking on a statement at the end of the piece and not even voicing any sections of it. Stick to print.
The site has issues and concerns of its own but a Chernobyl it is not. Chernobyl involved a majorly flawed design, a complete disregard for safety protocols and a government actively trying to hide the incidents. The general public was not nearly as knowledgeable about nuclear power and its risks then as they are now. The layers of failure that occurred in Ukraine in 1986 are essentially impossible in the UK. Even with mass corruption and failures, what happened in the USSR is a special kinda of disaster.
The point is that there is no nuclear power station or reactor on the site. Like Dounreay the place no longer exists as a producer of energy or is a breeder reactor There is nothing there that could explode in any way. No reactor being designed for use in the UK would be capable of causing the problems that were present in designs of the 1950s. Sellafield as it's now called is a recycling plant.
@@geoffreycodnett6570 You’re correct, none of the 7 reactors on the Site pose any radiological risk. They’re all, for the most part, defuelled. Recycling is possibly far-fetched by today’s considerations as all reprocessing operations have stopped. All that remains is the task of remediation and cleaning up the legacy facilities and constructing new ones to house the waste generated as a result of that. This video is complete nonsense and tries to paint modern nuclear in the picture of the past with the usual rhetoric and focus on incidents from many years ago. THORP’s leak, whilst serious, was completely contained within the cell, as are nuclear installations designed to do in the event of a release of internal containment. The cascade ventilation systems within the plant would mean absolutely none of this would be released into the wider environment.
I have watched just about every single decent video on UA-cam about nuclear meltdowns, critically incidents, orphaned sources, and I can say with confidence that this video is garbage, utter nuclear waste, the only worse catastrophy than Chernobyl is the fact this video exists, this is an awful stain on nuclear energy worse than windscale could ever hope to be
There’s a difference between commercial nuclear power and government nuclear weapons programmes, which was the whole reason for reprocessing in the first place. It just took someone smart to realise that it can be used for commercial power generation too. Without the lessons and knowledge gained in the nuclear field, we would be no where near as competent in nuclear technologies as today. Modern nuclear has never been safer and environmentally friendly.
Nothing can be properly completed until a GDF is build and the government needs to pick a location and just build one. NIMBYs are putting the UK at risk.
"The burden of nuclear waste is here for countless generations to come"... Yeah well, you use a voluntarily scary way to name things while not actually describing the burden. The burden is literally investing a few pounds per citizen in waste management in exchange for almost free & almost unlimited ENERGY. The benefits far exceed the costs.
"Almost free" that was what they promised us in the 50s. It has never been the case, not even close. All those various grades of waste, the containment facilities, the security, it all costs rather a lot of money. They're about 20 years into a 100 year programme of decommissioning the site and they still don't have solutions for some of the problems.
One thing to note these are built far away from london. I believe we should build one in the center of london to provides the citys power eith the newer smaller nuclear power generation available they are much Safer cheaper smaller and will provide better sustainable power to our grid that had had little investment since tories sold off all of our essential utilites so we no longer have to rely upon zfrench stste own EDF that is making a fortune out of the UK 54% profits and more whilst capping its profit within france to 4% to keep bills lower UK government hsve failed to buikd infrastructure for nearly 5 decades now successive goverments
Storage of radioactive waste is easier than you think. See letter in the professional Engineer. We have just been thinking about it in the wrong way. But I agree the current above ground storage is unacceptable.
Why can't we reprocess it to make new nuclear fuel rods, like the French. If it really is that radioactive it's full of energy. Energy that should be making green electricity.
@@knightsnight5929 Yes, because natural uranium is much cheaper. But it's worth it for energy security. Reprocessing means that when there's a severe shortage (and every energy market gets severe shortages every few decades) your supply is stable. It's the same reason we subsidies British farmers. It's commercially unviable, but worth it when there's a shortage
The site does carry risks, i mean, they've got the worlds largest store of civil plutonium there, for one. The risk may differ from Chernobyl, but to be dismissive of the risk is wrong. The point being, we still have no long-term solution for the storage of highly radioactive waste. They kept reprocessing spent fuel and have no current use for the recovered Pu. Attempts to use it to make MOX fuel failed. The cost of storing the stuff securely is huge.
It's a media outlet, just the same as any other. Clickbait and misinformation has had to take centre stage now that a politician caught with their trousers around their ankles isn't such a scandal anymore.
I think allowing greedy politicians remove safety standards over the years has taken its toll on us. And if we are to progress, we need to start fresh, globally, allowing research to allow us to arrive at decisions. This would be the saner course of action. But we live in an insane culture, so extinction is probable before we ever finish projects such as these.
@@aking610 Building standards and regulations *lowered* significantly. And also waste. Especially sewage. This isotope bomb is actually not political, but it is corporate. That compounds the initial point, don't you think? I'd assume so...
@@JT-si6bl I assure you that standards on Nuclear power in the UK has not been significantly lowered, if anything technology in both building and maintaining makes standards higher. We follow the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and are under the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I assure you these are not taken lightly. I can't speak for China or Russia but we have extremely high current standards in the UK. (I used to work for EDF)
@@aking610I know somebody who has left the nuclear power industry due to the lowering of safety standards. He said he didn't feel safe since a foreign entity took over and the drive for profits overtook the wellbeing of the workforce.
While one might not want to hold a sleep over there, the Guardian is grossly exaggerating the danger. People who took a certain vax in the last couple of years should be far more worried about that.
@@piscesDRB Fracking can cause minor earthquakes and in the event of an earthquake a nuclear plant has to be shut down and inspected, so a country with more nuclear power plants per area than anywhere else would obviously see fracking as a huge problem.
The biggest measure of the validity of this drivel is that they showed the spectacular train crash but failed to mention the result. The nuclear flask was fine. The rest of the article can be viewed in the same light - not sure I want to get on another train though. Maybe an in depth exposé on the number of people killed by trains yearly vs. nuclear disasters might bring some balance?
You got it wrong about how long Plutonium remains radioactive, 24,000 years is the half life, that means it will be only half as radioactive after this time. If less CO2 is desirable nuclear energy will have to be part of the solution so these issues will have to be resolved.
and at the same time, a blind eye is turned to Dounreay -- that site is and will remain polluted with radioactive waste; a shaft with unknown quantities of waste it has been left to contaminate groundwater and then there is all the radioactive waste that has been pumped out into the sea and regularly gets washed up on beaches .
Having done a survey up there, I will tell you the background radiation is worse than the alleged spilt nuclear material. And NO I did an independant survey for a non govt company interested in quoting for a clean uing up.
Extremely poor journalism from Guardian as usual , no new material or evidence just some annonymous sources about a cyber attack and decade old articles being brought up....keep it up Guardian ...no wonder you are failing
The Iron Lady signed an agreement with Japan to take their nuclear waste and reprocess it . The building is The Thermal Oxygen Reprocessing Plant known as THORP HEAD END .
THORP reprocessed fuel from many other countries, including Japan, and was able to handle various types of oxide fuels, such as our domestic AGR fuel. As previously mentioned, Head End refers to the stage where fuel is sheared and dissolved prior to chemical separation. The reprocessed waste is now being returned to Japan and other customer via container transport on ships. THORP discontinued fuel receipts in 2018. The plant is now being cleaned out. This information is all available on the Sellafield UA-cam channel.
That such a story (I refuse to call it legitimate journalism) should have anyone taking it seriously is an unfortunate consequence of schools no longer teaching students to reason.
@The Guardian "Plutonium ... remains radioactive for 24000 years". No, that's not how radioactive decay and half-life works. Parts of it remain radioactive far longer.
But I thought after 24000 years and one day, the radioactivity drops to zero . . no ? If the Guardian can't get that basic fact right, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the rest of the article, does it now ??
It was originally Calder Hall, that is the bit that had the fire. As technology changed different bits of the site became more prominent and the name changed first to Windscale and then Sellafield. But, the changes have been partly due to bad publicity.
Astonishing how childish and ill informed this is. Cue concerned presenter and Geiger counter crackling sound to irresponsibly whip up fear. Yes there is a large quantity of highly radioactive material at the site and many old buildings that are not ideal. Much progress has been made with this, why wasn't this reported? To draw an equivalence with Chernobyl is the worst form of gutter journalism.
I would have thought the most dangerous nuclear site in Europe would be in Zaporizhia
Yeh that’s what I assumed too
Well, it is the Guardian lol
No, you're thinking of the guardian hq.
That's the most dangerous site.😂
Indeed. I was questioning their maps in the opening.
It will be, but you don't expect the lefty Guardian to say that do you
What you failed to add is the company who run the UK nuclear facilities is French and has been importing waste from the plants in France and failed to build the six new power stations they promised when they won the contract. Chernobyl was a gigantic mistake caused by shifts not handing over properly and tests being carried without authorisation, the chances of this happening in UK is slim and scaremongering by anti Nuclear groups does not help.
UK nuclear facilities is French and has been importing waste from the plants in France"
Phukn Tories outsource everything.
THEY HAVE BEEN IMPORTING WASTE SINCE AT LEAST THE 70S . MY MATE WAS AN OFFICER ON BOARD A SHIP THAT DONE 2 TRIPS A YEAR FROM JAPAN . .
lol did you just call Gordon a Tory? @@z0n0ph0ne
Sellafield isn't owned by the French.
Nuclear waste is actually just a fuel we can't use yet.
I work in nuclear and I regularly work with people who spend time on the Sellafield site.
This is incredibly sensationalist journalism and they've made such little effort to conceal their agenda that it is just blatant fear mongering. To compare the waste in Sellafield (used fuel and low-level waste) to the Chernobyl power station (an active reactor packed with live fuel and the conditions for criticality) is ludicrous.
Also the UK disposal project, has found 3 willing communities and huge amounts of studies have been put into the project to ensure it's safe. Nuclear isn't ideal but it's far better than coal and gas.
I get what you're saying but it's still a national disgrace. It's still Europe's most hazardous nuclear site that has huge economic impact.
@@benpinder889 Tell me about it's huge economic impact.
@@TheStubertos For you to argue it's not, yeah I'm okay thanks.
But all radiation is the same! Didn't you know that? A glove with a smudge of unpurified uranium salts on it is just as dangerous as a pure 1 gram sample of polonium-210, which is just as dangerous as soil contaminated with strontium-90. And we all know that your cell phone is far more dangerous than all of those sources put together. Never mind your microwave oven. That thing will give you radiation poisoning[sic] in a second without the lead shielding.
[READ: IMPORTANT] This was (hopefully) obviously just a joke. But on the off chance someone took it seriously (you never know) nothing above was true.
So which parts of this piece are you contesting, which parts are not factual?
And, 'willing communities'? You imply that they were given a choice.
This is what we need, more nuclear fear mongering. Let’s put scary music and stock footage together, compare it to Chernobyl-whether or not it’s accurate or relevant! There’s no reason to take this remotely seriously considering they’re clearly more interested in fancy graphics than accurate reporting.
Isn't it better to have thorough independent scrutiny and oversight of risks to health and life than to choose the path of complacency. Plus, has this Tory government given the British, European and global populations reasons to trust their professionalism and care for the safety of the population. I'd say not. Plus has our security agencies given us reason to trust what they say when they have been found to lie in the name of selling weapons for war and the destruction of other countries which creates further security risks. Sellafield needs huge public investment to provide security. The whole country needs huge public investment because the private enterprise that this government swears by can't deliver. Instead money is syphoned off by greed, and jobs such as building housing is done on the cheap with flammable materials as regulations are slashed. What I am saying is Sellafield is symptomatic of a wider problem with how Britain is governed, but is, as the presenter stated, the most dangerous industrial site in Europe as assessed by the body that oversees nuclear sites. By my judgement your comment oozes with stupidity or ignorance toward the office for nuclear regulation. If you read this, it wouldn't surprise me if you were part of the Conservative party who seem ooze with stupidity.
@@wilfredsterling2124totally agree Wilfred, the government relies on folk sticking their heads in the sand 👍
Agree. Chernobyl was an inherently poor reactor design deliberately driven into an unstable condition. There's absolutely *ZERO* comparison with any reactor in the UK.
The geiger counter got me trembling lol 😂
@@mrb.5610and the Titanic was unsinkable. The fire at Windscale burned for three days and released radioactive fallout which spread across the UK and the rest of Europe.
This sounds very fear mongering to me. Just quick google search shows plutoniums half life is 24k years, so it remains radiocative a lot longer than that, and again with cyber security aspect their internal network that handles the nuclear waste is seperate from their general IT systems meaning no matter how much anyone tries they can't reach it without physically being there. I would love to know what nuclear physics and cyber security degrees the team has because my very limited knowledge on those 2 areas are ringing alarm bells in my head about the validity of this video. After a quick search neither Alex Lawson or Anna Isaac have the qualifications for a story like this.
You don't kick off a video with ICBM launches, dramatic music and the clicks of geiger counters if you have an interest other than vulgarity.
It's not quite true to say Plutonium has a half life and will be around a lot longer. Half life means that 50% of the Plutonium isotope concerned will no longer be the same after the period. It will be a different element. Uranium is exactly the same. Since 24,000 is a short period any Plutonium present when the earth formed is gone into different elements by now. Different isotopes of the same element will have different half lives. The elements with the highest atomic weights and numbers have a greater number of isotopes.
Just report this as misinformation, cause it is misinformation / a journalist who is not informed well on her or his subject. And its only used to fearmonger against nuclear energy.
Simple: reprocess the Plutonium(Pu) and make electricity from that. It's what's in MOX nuclear fuel used in plants currently does. GEH has a plant (search for GEH PRISM) that can use Pu, and other actinides, from spent fuel from light-water reactors to generate electricity; it's not new technology either. Pu isn't waste, it's a valuable resource to generate huge amounts of CO2-free electricity while simultaneously cleaning up Sellafield.
Oh Guardian… You have no idea… Shame on you…
How do we know when the media is lying about nuclear. When the guardian does an investigation and inserts Geiger counter sounds.
UA-cam needs Community Notes like X. So much misinformation in this article it's ridiculous. Classic Guardian.
Breathtakingly irresponsible journalism. The journalist's assertion that plutonium "remains radioactive for 24,000 years" shows they don't even understand the most fundamental concept of half-life.
Imagine the horror when they realise that uranium which is still radioactive has been on the planet since it formed. Even worse, the lead in car batteries will at least in part be a radioactive ☢️ by product from natural sources. There's also radioactive radon being released in various places and that may even cross to Ireland from the UK! The lack of proper education in sciences for 30yrs is taking its toll.
Well it's true. It's actually much longer than that. But that (true) snippet is more impactful than a longer explanation that we're all radioactive for ever....
@@ManchesterMan-zy5ye 'potentially'
Pro-tip: when you hear horror-movie music and sounds in a “news” video-that’s when they’re manipulating you.
Or your watching cartoon network 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Says the guy who is manipulated by the nuclear lobby - just like so many of us for decades. I trust the technology - not the people who run it
Lol, I'm old enough to remember, people dropping dead on the streets of China a few years ago, who's seen it happen in the UK 🤔🤔🤔
Not at all, plenty of people dying from "suddenly" and "unexpectedly" though, I miss actual cause of death being printed
It's nice to see how few people take the guardian seriously..
@@crazychrisfromessex1740 amen to that
They totally missed to explain (intentionally) that spent nuclear fuel (which is the most dangerous one) aka high-level waste, it’s just a small 3% of all the nuclear waste we produce.
90% percent is just lightly-contaminated materials like working cloths and similar.
Goelogical repository IS the only solution.
Spent nuclear fuel being a mere 3% means we accepted to juggle it around for a little longer until someone with enough will, will start digging underground these geological repository (like in Finland)
well... you are reading The Guardian, so what did you actually expect?
Is that relevant to anything in the video? And they did mention the need to bury the waste, which I think is what you're saying that they didn't explain. But, again, that wasn't the point the video was making.
Spent nuclear fuel is actually pretty safe. It contains high active and medium active waste together in a solid form and is stable to store. The problem is when it is reprocessed and the high active waste is separated out. The high active waste is then in a liquid form and is difficult to contain. This is where the vitrification idea came in. I am not sure if this technique has been perfected yet. I can only hope so.
1. Cog icon
2. Report
3. Misinformation
Even so it can be degraded using fusion.
The likelihood of a Chernobyl scale event is essentially zero.
That was said before Fukushima, too.
@@Benedictus-tl5uz Correct. It wasn't just one, it was 4 reactors blowing up.
@@peter_meyer It was contained reasonably well. Updates were made to their world's nuclear infrastructure as a result.
1. Cog icon
2. Report
3. Misinformation
@@peter_meyerFukushima was totally different wasn't it
As someone who has a physics degree and has worked at Sellafield before, this is complete nonsense and portrayed in a way to elicit a certain response from a viewer whom doesn't know any better.
Guardian readers by definition don't know any better. They just think they do.
Which parts were nonsense , specifically ? It's a nuclear site , risks and threats are always there , no ? I've worked there before too and i met a lot of really dense and incompetent people , the site itself constantly fails on it's targets and shows incompetence in many areas also mistakes , accidents or sabotage is always possible , no ?
@@tabularasa7775 Have you really worked there? I could claim I have worked at the Guardian and its full of a lot of really dense and incompetent people, and is supported by kickbacks from the renewable industry. As it happens I wont lie, but I am fairly sure that big money, not a desire to expose the truth, is behind this 'exposé'...
@@tabularasa7775 in 2023 and the future, no it’s far too safe and extremely regulatory. There’s no way anything serious would ever happen.
Is it just me or am I no better of than before I watched the video? Non of this was news or unexpected. They way it was titled was if they had some kind of expose to say? Or am I wrong?
Absolutely agree
Typical fear mongering for clicks.
False news regurgitated
to scare people can you please explain specifically what's the problem, its a nuclear storage facility. Well protected and audited to the highest safety criteria. End off
Sensational journalism 🤮
Do they even know what they're talking about? At 03:20 in, she says that Plutonium "remains radioactive for 24,000 years". Well, Pu-239 has a half-life of about 24,100 years, which is I guess where they got the number from. But "half-life" and "remains radioactive" is not the same thing at all. What utter tosh.
I don't understand the difference. But I realized this video is junk.
@@Deontjiehalf life - time it takes for half of the mass to degrade. So (1) the other half is still plutonium and (2) plutonium decays to Uranium
Straight to the .@@snaporatz
@@Deontjie And from what snaporatz has said, it follows that the half that is still plutonium is obviously going to also be still radioactive!
Absolute Peak Guardian. i'm no nuclear physicist but I know enough about nuclear power that the chernobyl comment got an eye roll from me.
You know someone at the Guardian got paid a lot to write & publish this deceptive article.
@@carterjones8126greenpeace, funded by big oil
They are evil for spreading such lies
Haha love this comment. Nice to see that the British people are able to think for themselves!
I went there as a child. It was a museum, there was a huge planetarium inside. I don’t know if it’s still like this? But I was on holiday when we went there, the place was full of children looking around this huge interactive museum. The planetarium was amazing. I’ve never forgotten it.
Sorry to say it has all been closed down under the present need for security 😬
I went too, it was fascinating.
Read up on the Windscale fire of 1957. (That's why they changed the name.)
@@rockets4kids I know about that. There was a section of the museum dedicated to it. It was called Sellafield already at the time of the museum.
And know is huge threat for the whole continent....
Some of us are old enough to have remembered Windscale.
The difference between sellafield and Chernobyl is that sellafield has more CONTAINED nuclear material while Chernobyl used to have nuclear material that then scattered all across Europe
Very ill informed this report. I would hope that the Guardian would at least get it’d facts right.
Full of misinformation, sensationalism and fear mongering. This poor standard of journalism is shocking at such a crucial time for the future of energy and left me with no choice but to cancel my digital subscription.
I have so many issues with The Guardian that I am inclined to take this video with a shovel of salt. We need an independent investigation of Guardian’s investigation.
When Windscale was renamed Sellafield, I remember comics joking that radioactivity would now be referred to as "magic moonbeams"...
Shame on The Guardian for this misleading content.
The usual half-baked pseudo-science that we can expect from the Guardian. You'd think they would embarrassed but evidently not.
It took about a minute for the Guardian to blame Russia. Standards are slipping.
Or the far right, Brexit, the tories, Nigel farage etc
Odd. They usually support Russia
"sellafield is the most dangerous industrial site in Europe"
Meanwhile Chernobyl:
The number of weasel words in this - whatever it is - was extreme, even for the Guardian.
3:22 Pu-239 has a half life of 24,000 years. So any significant amount of it will be radioactive even after much much longer.
So in about 100,000 years there will be still over 6% of it left.
Yep...she clearly has no understanding of half-life and the relatively low dangers of long half life isotopes. I'd quite happily hold a freshly cast block of weapons grade plutonium. However I'd be very concerned about breathing the air in a Cornish granite mine!
The Guardian was the last place I ever expected to see fearmongering and misinformation. RIP 1821 - 2023
Really? Bless!
Not a single mention of the nuclear disaster protocols that the gov has recently issued for the public.
or the warnings to stock up because of upcoming power outages this winter
Nothing wrong with nuclear power.
More expensive than green alternatives, for one
Radiation causes cancer.
@@CatatonicImperfectIt's a different type of energy service. Nuclear power saves you having to buy energy storage, and lasts twice as long as a wind turbine or solar panel (60 years + for most nuclear power stations, under 30 for most green energy products).
So neither is better or worse, there different solutions for different contexts/geographies.
Yes. But this was one of the world's first nuclear power stations, so they did make some large mistakes.
But they actually produce electricity...when it's needed.
Just what we expect from the Guardian - Scaremongering Tripe
Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from the Graun and most other major outlets currently. Manipulative and just `wrong` on so many things.
It’s OK, just the guardian trying to be relevent
Is this an Opinion piece or something?
"widely considered the most dangerous nuclear site in Europe"
"a legacy of the UK trying to keep pace with the US and Russia"
What a load of absolute bull.
Wait....where is the safety fears and evidence of hacks? I didn't se it in the video unless I'm blind
imagine these people are supposed to keep a nuclear power plant safe they cant even install an anti virus software or a firewall what hope is there? total BS for whats about to become massive news and it involves Ukraine and Zelensky
I heard of the hacks on an American page earlier
I just found out that a chipper not to far from sellafield closed recently, they did a lovely leg of cod 😋
Chipper? Wood chipper?
They have struggled to contain leaks since the eighties
In the up to date sites like Hinckley Point and Sizewell C, there is far less nuclear waste than in older sites!, and when the small modular reactors (SMR) come into play, then we should be energy efficient.
Those small modular reactors don't exist, so aren't very useful.
SMRs should be a total non starter - all the overhead and security issues of a nuclear site, multiplied many more times. If we are going down the road of nuclear, we should stick to as little a number of sites as we can. Use high voltage DC lines to transport the power to other parts of the country.
If we had Gen IV breeder reactors that could burn up plutonium from Gen I-III reactors, fair enough, but Hinkley Point C is still a Gen III reactor that will generate marginally less nuclear waste than previous designs, but not much.
@@sanfrancrisko9962 DC lines? Enlighten me….
With nuclear waste the quantity is irrelevant
@@sanfrancrisko9962To correct your idea high voltage DC is not an efficient method of transmission of energy. The high school model of little balls called electrons flowing down a wire like a pipe isn't how it works. AC is more efficient for many reasons.
Stuff with a very long half life of decay sounds scary but is actually relatively safe. It's the stuff with short half lives you want to be scared of.
Depends. Plutonium is fine to be close to, but is extremely nasty if it gets inside you (in the lungs or through a cut on the skin). The Alpha radiation it gives off buggers up any cells it is close to very badly.
Sort of, Iodine-129 is the longest living fission products and it can pose a problem during reprocessing. All the short-lived elements are long gone by the time they reach Sellafield.
But you're right, by far the greatest hazard is active reactors.
The only similarity it ever had with Chernobyl was the Windscale fire back when it was being used as a weapons manufacturing reactor.
That's what the Windscale reactor was for, which is why WE ARE FREE!
lol an 'investigation' by the guardian: "ooh spicy rocks, sounds scary: investigation complete"
Nuclear is the best and cheapest 'green' energy.
The anti nuclear power movement (as distinct from the anti nuclear weapons movement) would never have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for astroturfing by big oil, who had vested interest obviously in making sure that nuclear power never became the dominant form of power generation.
1. Cog icon
2. Report
3. Misinformation
And renewables, which Big Oil Loves because it means we still have to burn fossil fuel.
Thanks Guardian, for guaranteeing the continuation of coal burning. 🖕
Questioning the safety of such an important infrastructure doesn't mean that we need to burn coal, it emphasizes that we need to be careful and to invest in nuclear safety.
Germany has already signed off on reopening coal fired power stations.
There are more than two options
Every home and business could generate their own power but how do you control people then eh
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. As over 98% of the CO2 in the air is produced by plants where is the proof its man made CO2 that is the trigger for global warming? I recall it was claimed only 20 years ago that the climate change and ice melting was due to holes in the Ozone Layer and driven by aerosol; that crisis seems to have been dropped now and its all CO2 !
@@susanb4816There are very few alternatives to nuclear power, coal and natural gas primarily, which are worse in every possible sense. Renewables *cannot* serve the same role as these stable and tunable sources. We need as much renewable energy as possible, and we need nuclear to fill its very real and obvious gaps. This irresponsible fear mongering absolutely does not promote renewables. It’s promoting coal and natural gas.
So refreshing to hear someone pronounce the word 'nuclear' correctly.
The scaremongers always place nuclear power plants in the same catergory as nuclear weapons. They are very different things and unrelated.
I especially loved the cloud of waste projected over Norway 4:52. A cursory glance at any weather system over the UK will show you that such a spread would be impossible. Strange that the two nations that worry about selafield, Norway and Ireland, are also anti-nuclear states!
Actually a nuclear explosion the magnitude of a power station going boom could cause a superheated pocket of rapidly rising air which could alter weather patterns locally. Look into the US HAARP weather control arrays that exist & DO work as designed.
Ireland aren't anti-nuclear. They are honest in their assessment that they couldn't run large nuclear facilities. But to be clear, despite no risk of a meltdown, there is still the possiblity of nuclear material becoming airborne from Sellafield and weather systems spreading that material.
Someone wants to check out the cancer rates & birth defects & infant deaths in the area. I have said that for years especially in the 70s & early 80s 😢
So safe they had to change its name from Windscale in order that over the years people would “forget” the negative associations with it.
@@brutonstreettailor4570 Given its primary purpose shifted from the production of atomic weapons to reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel, it sort of makes sense.
The cooling ponds were leaking 30 years ago & still are....
Most of the waste is from the early magnox program, the current PWR reactors generate a far smaller volume of waste. Plutonium has a long half-life, so what? So do radioactive materials that are abundant in the earth's crust, and it's estimated that about half of the heat generated within the earth's core is due to reactive decay. This heat keeps the iron core molten and sustains the magnetosphere which deflects solar radiation and keeps us alive. Anyway, I thought global warming due to CO2 emissions was the critical global emergency?
Nothing new or especially interested. B30 for example is one of the most active parts of the site. They make it look like it's just being left to rot and nobody is doing anything about it.
I imagine the nuclear-phobic government may be a reason as to why upgrading the facility is difficult. Not much can be done about adversarial actors besides better cybersecurity so that isnt really "their" fault.
And I imagine drawing unnecessary attention to the Site (from potential hackers) will not be doing anyone any favours anyway. I'm fairly confident most plant control systems have their own internal networks that are not connected to the internet. The claims are completely spurious and found on little evidence.
@@Kylem6875 Im not sure about uk systems but us sites its kinda mandatory
Shameless plug: Kraftwerk with their brilliant "radioactivity" and the even better WIlliam Orbit 12" remix
The errors in this videoreport and in the article deserve a lawsuit. Insane fearmongering...
I waited the whole video for the big reveal of these major safety fears. None were presented. Instead it turned out to just be a generic nuclear scare word jumble. Shame on you.
The sky is falling! the sky is falling! Again.
i live near Dounreay...they made an awful mess here too
So do I mate, it's really rather overstated as an issue tbh. Nuclear fearmongering is insane for some reason
I spoke to someone working on the clean up and it's a forever '5 year' project which would see him to retirement. So they aren't being honest about the costs.
@@andyhodchild8 long delayed indeed, but that's not the same as dangerous or "an awful mess"
i don't think honest is a word they know very well@@andyhodchild8
I live near Dungeness, and see its silhouette clearly whenever I go to Hythe or Folkestone. I'm quite chuffed that pylons lead from there to my area, and that the electricity I use produces zero CO2.
As a Guardian reader I find this embarrassing. A series of sensationalist headlines trotted out about unrelated elements of an enormous site. Right of reply limited to tacking on a statement at the end of the piece and not even voicing any sections of it. Stick to print.
More BS from a BS media company
The site has issues and concerns of its own but a Chernobyl it is not. Chernobyl involved a majorly flawed design, a complete disregard for safety protocols and a government actively trying to hide the incidents. The general public was not nearly as knowledgeable about nuclear power and its risks then as they are now. The layers of failure that occurred in Ukraine in 1986 are essentially impossible in the UK. Even with mass corruption and failures, what happened in the USSR is a special kinda of disaster.
The point is that there is no nuclear power station or reactor on the site. Like Dounreay the place no longer exists as a producer of energy or is a breeder reactor
There is nothing there that could explode in any way. No reactor being designed for use in the UK would be capable of causing the problems that were present in designs of the 1950s. Sellafield as it's now called is a recycling plant.
@@geoffreycodnett6570 You’re correct, none of the 7 reactors on the Site pose any radiological risk. They’re all, for the most part, defuelled. Recycling is possibly far-fetched by today’s considerations as all reprocessing operations have stopped. All that remains is the task of remediation and cleaning up the legacy facilities and constructing new ones to house the waste generated as a result of that.
This video is complete nonsense and tries to paint modern nuclear in the picture of the past with the usual rhetoric and focus on incidents from many years ago. THORP’s leak, whilst serious, was completely contained within the cell, as are nuclear installations designed to do in the event of a release of internal containment. The cascade ventilation systems within the plant would mean absolutely none of this would be released into the wider environment.
Comparing this to Chernobyl is an unfair comparison. Do better research. Nuclear waste is pretty harmless when left on its own
You do know that the longer a half life, the less dangerous the radioactivity?
I have watched just about every single decent video on UA-cam about nuclear meltdowns, critically incidents, orphaned sources, and I can say with confidence that this video is garbage, utter nuclear waste, the only worse catastrophy than Chernobyl is the fact this video exists, this is an awful stain on nuclear energy worse than windscale could ever hope to be
Oh, it's the Guardian.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you are powering your "environmentally friendly" electric car.
There’s a difference between commercial nuclear power and government nuclear weapons programmes, which was the whole reason for reprocessing in the first place.
It just took someone smart to realise that it can be used for commercial power generation too. Without the lessons and knowledge gained in the nuclear field, we would be no where near as competent in nuclear technologies as today. Modern nuclear has never been safer and environmentally friendly.
"Widely considered to be...…" by The Guardian, no less! So it must be true- Help!
Nothing can be properly completed until a GDF is build and the government needs to pick a location and just build one.
NIMBYs are putting the UK at risk.
Quick question in reference to your scary Norway graphic.... what if the wind was a northerly?
Sagging concrete too, the type that the schools have been abandoned for.
Didn't you go and audit this site?
no mention of cockrofts follies and the part they played. sheer negativity.
"The burden of nuclear waste is here for countless generations to come"... Yeah well, you use a voluntarily scary way to name things while not actually describing the burden. The burden is literally investing a few pounds per citizen in waste management in exchange for almost free & almost unlimited ENERGY. The benefits far exceed the costs.
"Almost free" that was what they promised us in the 50s. It has never been the case, not even close. All those various grades of waste, the containment facilities, the security, it all costs rather a lot of money. They're about 20 years into a 100 year programme of decommissioning the site and they still don't have solutions for some of the problems.
One thing to note these are built far away from london.
I believe we should build one in the center of london to provides the citys power eith the newer smaller nuclear power generation available they are much Safer cheaper smaller and will provide better sustainable power to our grid that had had little investment since tories sold off all of our essential utilites so we no longer have to rely upon zfrench stste own EDF that is making a fortune out of the UK 54% profits and more whilst capping its profit within france to 4% to keep bills lower UK government hsve failed to buikd infrastructure for nearly 5 decades now successive goverments
EDF (UK) are in billions of debt.
@@aking610but they are owned by French government, actually state owned!
Storage of radioactive waste is easier than you think. See letter in the professional Engineer. We have just been thinking about it in the wrong way. But I agree the current above ground storage is unacceptable.
Why can't we reprocess it to make new nuclear fuel rods, like the French.
If it really is that radioactive it's full of energy. Energy that should be making green electricity.
@@domtweed7323nope tried that, it was a commercial disaster.
@@knightsnight5929 Yes, because natural uranium is much cheaper.
But it's worth it for energy security. Reprocessing means that when there's a severe shortage (and every energy market gets severe shortages every few decades) your supply is stable.
It's the same reason we subsidies British farmers. It's commercially unviable, but worth it when there's a shortage
"See letter in the professional Engineer." That was a letter to the editor?
The site does carry risks, i mean, they've got the worlds largest store of civil plutonium there, for one. The risk may differ from Chernobyl, but to be dismissive of the risk is wrong.
The point being, we still have no long-term solution for the storage of highly radioactive waste. They kept reprocessing spent fuel and have no current use for the recovered Pu. Attempts to use it to make MOX fuel failed.
The cost of storing the stuff securely is huge.
Plants are currently being constructed on the Site to repackage the Pu until a long-term solution is agreed upon.
Guardian is Britain's worst newspaper
This must be factual because no way would The Guardian ever do the UK down. They are for all of us.
Do your homework
@@integinteg9222Irony .......
It's a media outlet, just the same as any other.
Clickbait and misinformation has had to take centre stage now that a politician caught with their trousers around their ankles isn't such a scandal anymore.
@@integinteg9222dude I think he was being sarcastic
I think allowing greedy politicians remove safety standards over the years has taken its toll on us. And if we are to progress, we need to start fresh, globally, allowing research to allow us to arrive at decisions. This would be the saner course of action. But we live in an insane culture, so extinction is probable before we ever finish projects such as these.
Please explain to me what safety standards have they removed?
@@aking610 Building standards and regulations *lowered* significantly. And also waste. Especially sewage. This isotope bomb is actually not political, but it is corporate. That compounds the initial point, don't you think? I'd assume so...
@@JT-si6bl I assure you that standards on Nuclear power in the UK has not been significantly lowered, if anything technology in both building and maintaining makes standards higher.
We follow the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and are under the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I assure you these are not taken lightly.
I can't speak for China or Russia but we have extremely high current standards in the UK.
(I used to work for EDF)
It's not greed, it's laziness and incompetence!
@@aking610I know somebody who has left the nuclear power industry due to the lowering of safety standards. He said he didn't feel safe since a foreign entity took over and the drive for profits overtook the wellbeing of the workforce.
While one might not want to hold a sleep over there, the Guardian is grossly exaggerating the danger. People who took a certain vax in the last couple of years should be far more worried about that.
If you think no-one would have a sleep over there then you obviously haven't worked there. :)
Disagree,it's absolutely leaping in those legacy buildings.
I didn’t realise Sellafield reactor, was still here!!
Ther is no reactor at sellafield
@@leosmith848 There are reactors at Sellafield, they're just devoid of fuel.
This is misleading & I'm surprised at the Guardian for this. I thought they knew better.
For safety reasons French courts banned fracking in France, nuclear and fracking don't go well together.
Why?
@@piscesDRB Fracking can cause minor earthquakes and in the event of an earthquake a nuclear plant has to be shut down and inspected, so a country with more nuclear power plants per area than anywhere else would obviously see fracking as a huge problem.
@@krashd The UK has over 2000 'minor earthquakes' every year without any fracking. Keep you oil company shilling out of it.
The Guardian often gets arts graduates to do it's science, they don't do science and struggle with basic arithmetic.
The biggest measure of the validity of this drivel is that they showed the spectacular train crash but failed to mention the result. The nuclear flask was fine. The rest of the article can be viewed in the same light - not sure I want to get on another train though. Maybe an in depth exposé on the number of people killed by trains yearly vs. nuclear disasters might bring some balance?
You got it wrong about how long Plutonium remains radioactive, 24,000 years is the half life, that means it will be only half as radioactive after this time. If less CO2 is desirable nuclear energy will have to be part of the solution so these issues will have to be resolved.
and at the same time, a blind eye is turned to Dounreay -- that site is and will remain polluted with radioactive waste; a shaft with unknown quantities of waste it has been left to contaminate groundwater and then there is all the radioactive waste that has been pumped out into the sea and regularly gets washed up on beaches .
The shaft you refer to is currently being emptied
Having done a survey up there, I will tell you the background radiation is worse than the alleged spilt nuclear material. And NO I did an independant survey for a non govt company interested in quoting for a clean uing up.
@@bikechainmic So in other words you said it wasn't bad as a reason for quoting a low price, ensuring you got the contract?
@@jackking5567 i don't think you thought that through very well
A massive cleanup costing billions is underway at Dounreay....including clearing up the shaft....
Thats hardly a blind eye...
There are certainly many worrying issues at Sellafield, but this "report" is total nonsense.
"Europe's most dangerous nuclear site" Guardian is so full of toxic radioactive waste, I can't believe a word they say.
I agree. it's one of the worst of the UK rags.
delete this lil bro.
Extremely poor journalism from Guardian as usual , no new material or evidence just some annonymous sources about a cyber attack and decade old articles being brought up....keep it up Guardian ...no wonder you are failing
Too often is nuclear energy vilified.
The Iron Lady signed an agreement with Japan to take their nuclear waste and reprocess it . The building is The Thermal Oxygen Reprocessing Plant known as THORP HEAD END .
Thermal Oxide. Refers to fuel type. Head End is just part of the plant receiving fuel. Are you opposed to making money in a safe and regulated manner?
@@piscesDRB what if its not safe for the next 25000 years ?
THORP reprocessed fuel from many other countries, including Japan, and was able to handle various types of oxide fuels, such as our domestic AGR fuel.
As previously mentioned, Head End refers to the stage where fuel is sheared and dissolved prior to chemical separation.
The reprocessed waste is now being returned to Japan and other customer via container transport on ships.
THORP discontinued fuel receipts in 2018. The plant is now being cleaned out. This information is all available on the Sellafield UA-cam channel.
That such a story (I refuse to call it legitimate journalism) should have anyone taking it seriously is an unfortunate consequence of schools no longer teaching students to reason.
@The Guardian
"Plutonium ... remains radioactive for 24000 years". No, that's not how radioactive decay and half-life works. Parts of it remain radioactive far longer.
did they not say Half Life --- we all know that the half Life is 24,000 years
But I thought after 24000 years and one day, the radioactivity drops to zero . . no ?
If the Guardian can't get that basic fact right, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the rest of the article, does it now ??
I noticed that too. Sloppy BBC-style reporting.
@@mrb.5610 no it drops by half for each cycle of the half-life period .. so total drop after 24k/48k/72k years will be 50% then 75% then 87.5% etc
That's not what they said. Get your quotes correct before arguing please.
Didn't this place used to be called Windscale?
Changing it to" Leafy Meadows"
They changed the name to stop people associating it with the problems connected to that first name!
Thats's right and it says it multiple times in the video, which you clearly didn't watch before commenting.
@@temparalflux914 Thankyou.
It was originally Calder Hall, that is the bit that had the fire. As technology changed different bits of the site became more prominent and the name changed first to Windscale and then Sellafield. But, the changes have been partly due to bad publicity.
Omg our privatised water companies can't even bother to keep the water clean so imagine how greedy the people running this place will be
Astonishing how childish and ill informed this is. Cue concerned presenter and Geiger counter crackling sound to irresponsibly whip up fear. Yes there is a large quantity of highly radioactive material at the site and many old buildings that are not ideal. Much progress has been made with this, why wasn't this reported? To draw an equivalence with Chernobyl is the worst form of gutter journalism.
Hmm, pretty poor reporting. Expected better.
A very misleading report- shame on you Guardian