'A ticking nuclear time bomb' - Russian nuclear waste dump corroding faster than expected

[bananas]

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=862932007

'A ticking nuclear time bomb'
JAMES KIRKUP AND CONOR SWEENEY

SUSPENDED from the ceiling, they are covered in deadly radioactive material that drops off them in lumps to the wet floor beneath. The 20,000 fuel rods contained in three tanks at the Andreeva Bay storage site once held enough nuclear energy to power Russia's entire submarine fleet.

Now, cracks in the concrete walls of the dilapidated tanks have allowed seawater and rainwater to seep in and corrode the lethal contents.

The situation is so bad Russia's nuclear agency has warned rods at the site could explode in an "uncontrolled chain reaction", according to a Norwegian environmental group, which says it has a leaked copy of a report.

Experts say that could set off an explosion scattering radioactive material across northern Europe, reaching even as far as Britain, in an environmental catastrophe worse than the Chernobyl disaster.

<snip>

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. We need to kick this up for the pro-nuclear faction in our midst.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Cui Bono? Here's the plan --

1. The Rooskies ask us for technical assistance. Like they did in the 1980s.

2. We tell them to go pound sand. Like we did under Reagan.

3. Andreeva suffers an explosion (it is unclear exactly what will happen, or how). Like happened with Chernobyl.

4. The anti-nuclearists snark about it until the cows come home. Like they have done since at least since TMI in 1978.

The Good News:

1. Millions of people won't die.

2. The prevailing winds are west-to-east. This argues against contamination of Scandinavia and the British Isles -- but not absolutely.

3. The anti-nuclearists aren't invoking 9-11 this time.

4. There will be a number of exciting books and movies released about it: "Countdown At Andreeva" and "Death On The Taiga: The Andreeva Disaster".

5. We will all live simpler, richer lives -- with less electricity. Well, those of us who are richer will, anyway.

Cui Bono? -- Who Profits? Big Oil, Semiconductors, and, of course, Coal. Plus a generation of self-appointed "public interest lawyers". Just like during the later 1980s.

What about wind and solar power? That's a joke, right? As if a single dollar more will be spent beyond that which is required to advertise the oil and coal industries as being "green".

The IAEA? Toothless and aimless. But it's time to change that.

--p!

[NNadir]

3. According to a "Norwegian Environmental Group?"

Let me guess, that would be Stadtoil, the oil company?

Norway will kill many tens of thousands of people throughout the world with their main product, <em>oil</em>, so one wonders why there are no "Norwegian Environmental" groups speculating about dangerous fossil fuel waste that is not a ticking time bomb but an actively exploding bomb.

Reflexive nuclear opponents know almost zero about the subject of nuclear technology and rely soley on speculation and fear to make their case. This "report" is merely proof of that assertion. They rely almost solely on innuendo and suggestion, "leaked secret reports" and the like.

The Russian <em>military</em> nuclear program has done many questionable things some of which have had tragic and fatal conseqences no doubt, but in the entire history of the Russian Naval Program, it has not killed as many people as will die in the next two months in Iraq which is a war for fossil fuels.

Of course, there is not one fucking reflexive antinuke on the planet who is calling for disbanding thechemical industry, because there are dangerous stocks of chemical weapons. There is not one fucking reflexive antinuke who has the moral courage to call for the banning of the petroleum because of military stocks of napalm and F-16 Jet fuel.

The reflexive antinuclear squad is full of shit, mostly ethical shit.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Let me guess...

The Andreeva facility is so dangerous, it's killing 2 million people a year, melting the icecaps, turning the seas to acid and cannot be fixed in any way.

No?

Not as bad as coal, then. And therefore not as bad as waiting for something else, and phasing coal out over the next 40 years.

[NNadir]

5. Well, it's really not fair to put it this way...

We are talking about military facilities here.

It's not like the use of fossil fuels has any military implications.