hydro electric

And even there they are wrong, since waste disposal is not a problem.

Quite often the suppliers insist on a change to metering when the house changes hands - so slowly they are forcing a change to metered by default.

No, its ceearly based on a good understanding of the actual real situation.

No one has ever died or even been made ill by controlled disposal of nuclear waste nor will they be.

Ever eat a banana? Far more dangerous than fish.

Of course they are, decommisioning and disposal of waste is the major cost in any nuclear power project. You claimed that this was not a problem, and I never mentioned radiation by the way.

Of course it is, just look at the history of Sellafield. Stop talking nonsense!

Been asleep? Waste disposal is a real and expensive problem.

Estimates are of a million tonnes of contaminated water, and no agreed way of disposing. Some drop! And releasing it into the Pacific will not ensure it is stirred well into the whole of the oceans. Thus fishermen in the area object to such release. Stay away from Pacific Prawns!

It's a problem but not an unsolved problem. That is the point.

And you mentioned the radioactive water ending up in the sea.

Issues at Sellafield are the legacy of the bomb programme, not routine disposal of waste from nuclear power stations.

It's a solved problem.

Ok, I've looked. So where is the problem?

Sellafield is a poor example. It was built primarily as a plutonium factory for nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. Little thought was given to its decommissioning, and the working practices that took place, including the handling of waste during the separation and purification of that plutonium, left much to be desired, and resulted in the mess we see now.

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer process, and no longer a problem.

Only if you choose to make it so.

Whose estimates? Contaminated with what (i.e., which isotopes), and at what level?

A million tonnes is a cube 100 metres long. There's a 1000 of those in each cubic km of seawater. The giant brain tells me that there's more than 700 million cu. km. in the Pacific.

So your million tonnes joins 700,000,000,000 other million tonnes. And that's just the Pacific.

As the sums show, it doesn't need to be.

Well they would do, as they are routinely lied to by people like you.

with a kg of contaminant at most...

that is because anti-nuclear people will not agree on any way of disposing of anything.

that is a drop. its a block of water 100 meters square and 100 meters deep. In 1.3 billion cubic KILOMETRES of ocean.

As I said never mind a million tinnes of water with a kg ofd radiactive materials theres already 4 BILLION TONNES of uranium of which at least

Ok you may say, but thats a long lived isotope that 'lasts millions of years' and that means it gives off not much radiaoctivity. # Except that its the main source of radon which is the biggest source of natural radiation along with potassium and carbon.

And in comparison to X rays and use of CT scans and active xray surgery its less thban thsoe by some margin.

You get nmore radiation at your dentists than you will in total from Chernobyl and Fukushima ever.

Oh dear. I see physics of diffusion is NOT your strong point

I guess someone has told them the sam bucnch of crap they told you then

Interesting that despite the Big Numbers you have nowhere quoted the actual radioactivity content.

I can drop a microgram of cobalt 60 into the sea and instantly create

Not that it wasnt contaminated with 4 billion tonnes of uranium already.

That's good to know. Thus no need for all this fuss over siting a geological depository? Just stockpile the stuff for ever? Yes that'll work.

That's your idea of a solution is it?

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.