Published on May 14, 2012 by Artivistmb

THE ROCK SOLID? LECTURE BY DR HELEN WALLACE

• THE ROCK SOLID Lecture 10th May, The Box, Kendal Museum 
Helen Wallace is the author of "Rock Solid?" a review of the scientific
evidence regarding the deep disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.

Dr. Wallace discusses the main safety concerns associated with the
deep disposal of nuclear waste and how these safety issues are directly
relevant to the decision Cumbrian councils are about to make.

Wallace, who gave expert evidence at the Nirex Inquiry more than 15 years
ago, also explained the political process that has led to the
Sellafield area being re-considered for deep disposal after it was ruled
out as geologically unsuitable for further investigation and planning
permission was rejected in 1997.

Dr Wallace said: "The geology of the area has not changed but the addition
of heat-generating high-level wastes will make the plans a lot more
dangerous than back in 1997. No other country in the world is trying to
return to a site ruled out as geologically unsuitable in a
previous inquiry. Adding high-level wastes to the gas-generating
long-lived wastes that were originally intended to be buried on the site
at Longlands Farm will make the flow of radioactive water and gas out of
the repository much harder to predict. Nirex struggled to find a
sufficient volume of rock between the major faults and fractures in the
area, but now the planned repository may be ten times bigger or more".

"A decision to participate would overturn Cumbria and Copeland's
previous decisions that deep disposal in West Cumbria would be unsafe
and that Longlands Farm was unsuitable for further investigations.
Members of the public will rightly ask their councillors: what has
changed since the decision Cumbria County Council made in June 1999 to
fill the boreholes in? The geology is still the same, the wastes are
much more dangerous and the much larger volume of unfractured and
unfaulted rock now needed will be impossible to find. At the same time,
scientists have uncovered a lot more potential problems that increase
the risk of radioactive contamination of food and water in the future,
including corrosion of materials and the roles of gas and heat".

"Turkeys don't vote for Christmas but this is what West Cumbria may be
about to do. A trap has been set deliberately in London to make Cumbria,
Copeland and Allerdale councils overturn the Nirex Inquiry findings by
arguing exactly the opposite of what they said at the inquiry more than
fifteen years ago. There will be no turning back: if they want to pull
out in the future, they will have to find new evidence to justify
another U-turn."

The Lecture is part of the series of events alongside the 'Rock Solid?' Expo at Kendal Museum 
http://www.kendalmuseum.org.uk/news-12-01-23-rock-solid.php

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace l Press Release   August 7, 2012

For immediate release

Contacts:

 

Jane Swanson janeslo@me.com  (805) 595-2605

 

Linda Seeley   lindaseeley@gmail.com  (805) 234-1769

 

NRC FREEZES ALL NUCLEAR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION & OPERATING LICENSES IN U.S.

Decision Follows 24 Groups’ June Petition in Wake of Major Waste Confidence Rule Decision;   Most Reactor Projects Already Stymied by Bad Economics and Cheaper Fuel Alternatives

WASHINGTON, D.C. – August 7, 2012 – The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions – nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit – in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8^th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The NRC action was sought in a June 18, 2012 petition filed by 24 groups urging the NRC to respond to the court ruling by freezing final licensing decisions until it has completed a rulemaking action on the environmental impacts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in the form of spent, or ‘used’, reactor fuel storage and disposal.

In hailing the NRC action, the groups also noted that most of the U.S. reactor projects were already essentially sidetracked by the huge problems facing the nuclear industry, including an inability to control runaway costs, and the availability of far less expensive energy alternatives.  

Diane Curran, an attorney representing some of the groups in the Court of Appeals case, said: This Commission decision halts all final licensing decisions -- but not the licensing proceedings themselves -- until NRC completes a thorough study of the environmental impacts of storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel.  That study should have been done years ago, but NRC just kept kicking the can down the road.  When the Federal Appeals Court ordered NRC to stop and consider the impacts of generating spent nuclear fuel for which it has found no safe means of disposal, the agency could choose to appeal the decision by August 22nd or choose to do the serious work of analyzing the environmental impacts over the next few years.  With today’s Commission decision, we are hopeful that the agency will undertake the serious work.” 

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace spokesperson Jane Swanson noted that, “Mothers for Peace in 1973, as part of its challenge of the original operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, argued that the Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor of the NRC, should not allow the generation of radioactive wastes without knowing how to isolate those wastes from the environment. Now, 39 years later, the NRC has been forced by the federal court to acknowledge this necessity. Future actions by the agency will determine whether public confidence is enhanced or further weakened. ”

Lou Zeller, executive director of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, another petitioner to the Court, said: said:  “It appears that the Commissioners have, at least initially, grasped the magnitude of the Court’s ruling and we are optimistic that it will set up a fundamentally transparent, fair process under the National Environmental Policy Act to examine the serious environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal prior to licensing or relicensing nuclear reactors.”

Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford said:   “It is important to recognize that the reactors awaiting construction licenses weren't going to be built anytime soon even without the Court decision or today's NRC action. Falling demand, cheaper alternatives and runaway nuclear costs had doomed their near term prospects well before the recent Court decision. Important though the Court decision is in modifying the NRC's historic push-the-power-plants-but-postpone-the-problems approach to generic safety and environmental issues, it cannot be blamed for ongoing descent into fiasco of the bubble once known as ‘the nuclear renaissance’.”

In June, the following groups filed the petition with the NRC:

• Beyond Nuclear, Inc. (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding, Calvert Cliffs COL proceeding, and Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding; potential intervenor in Grand Gulf COL and Grand Gulf license renewal proceedings);
• Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Inc. and chapters (“BREDL”) (intervenor in Bellefonte COL proceeding and North Anna COL proceeding; previously sought intervention in W.S. Lee COL proceeding);
• Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc. (former intervenor in Turkey Point COL proceeding);
• Citizens Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Inc.  (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding and Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding);
• Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding);
• Don’t Waste Michigan, Inc. (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding and Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding);
• Ecology Party of Florida (intervenor in Levy COL proceeding);
• Eric Epstein (potential intervenor in Bell Bend COL proceeding);
• Friends of the Earth, Inc. (potential intervenor in reactor licensing proceedings throughout U.S.);
• Friends of the Coast, Inc. (intervenor in Seabrook license renewal proceeding);
• Green Party of Ohio  (intervenor in Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding);
• Dan Kipnis  (intervenor in Turkey Point proceeding);
• National Parks Conservation Association, Inc.  (intervenor in Turkey Point COL proceeding); 
• Mark Oncavage  (intervenor in Turkey Point COL proceeding);
• Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Inc.  (Petitioner in Callaway license renewal proceeding; intervenor in suspended Callaway COL proceeding)
• New England Coalition, Inc. (intervenor in Seabrook license renewal proceeding);
• North Carolina Waste Reduction and Awareness Network, Inc.  (admitted as an Intervenor in now-closed Shearon Harris COL proceeding);
• Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Inc.  (intervenor in Calvert Cliffs COL proceeding and Levy COL proceeding);
• Public Citizen, Inc.  (intervenor in South Texas COL proceeding; admitted as intervenor in now-closed Comanche Peak COL proceeding; potential intervenor in South Texas license renewal proceeding);
• San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Inc.  (intervenor in Diablo Canyon license renewal proceeding); 
• Sierra Club, Inc. (Michigan Chapter)  (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding);
• Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Inc.  (intervenor in Watts Bar Unit 2 OL proceeding, Turkey Point COL proceeding, Bellefonte COL proceeding; former intervenor in Bellefonte CP proceeding);
• Southern Maryland CARES, Inc.  (Citizens Alliance for Renewable Energy Solutions) (intervenor in Calvert Cliffs COL proceeding);
• Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (“SEED”) Coalition, Inc.  (intervenor in South Texas COL proceeding; admitted as intervenor in now-closed Comanche Peak COL proceeding; potential intervenor in South Texas license renewal proceeding).

 

The 24 groups that sponsored the June 18^th petition will strategize in September regarding next steps.

 

On June 8^th, the Court threw out the NRC rule that permitted licensing and re-licensing of nuclear reactors based on the supposition that (a) the NRC will find a way to dispose of spent reactor fuel to be generated by reactors at some time in the future when it becomes “necessary” and (b) in the mean time, spent fuel can be stored safely at reactor sites. 

The Court noted that, after decades of failure to site a repository, including twenty years of working on the now-abandoned Yucca Mountain repository, the NRC “has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.”  Therefore it is possible that spent fuel will be stored at reactor sites “on a permanent basis.”  Under the circumstances, the NRC must examine the environmental consequences of failing to establish a repository when one is needed.    

The Court also rejected NRC’s decision minimizing the risks of leaks or fires from spent fuel stored in reactor pools during future storage, because the NRC had not demonstrated that these future impacts would be insignificant.  The Court found that past experience with pool leaks was not an adequate predictor of future experience.  It also concluded that the NRC had not shown that catastrophic fires in spent fuel pools were so unlikely that their risks could be ignored. 

MEDIA CONTACT:  Alex Frank, (703) 276-3264 or afrank@hastingsgroup.com.

The NRC Memorandum and Order can be downloaded at  http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensing/wasteconfruling8712.pdf

http://www.mothersforpeace.org/

Since the beginning of the atomic age the nuclear industrial complex, first military then civilian, has said the same thing. They had no idea what to do with all the radioactive waste they had and would generate, but that someday they would know. Last month this uncomforting half truth (it is clear they do not know) was struck down in court and the US is now without what was called "the waste confidence decision."

In a sane world the implication would be obvious. Without a real and implementable plan for what to do with radioactive waste from nuclear energy and weapons production they need to stop making it, and begin decommissioning the reactors and the weapons. In case things go on as business as usual, prepare yourself to peaceably but forcefully remind them. Do not use your inside voices. Stand on the street if you have to and shout it to the rooftops. We cannot contaminate our planet with forever deadly waste that will poison our water, give people cancer, and rob our children and their children of a world they can live in. Nuclear waste is a ticking time bomb. Fukushima has, once again, shown that spent fuel is not spent at all. It is poorly contained in a nightmare trust fund of denial aimed at the future. An account that, like many others right now, is hemorrhaging badly. The law of averages would indicate we are reaching "last call" for the planet. Are you listening?

As for the editorial's embrace of Centeralized Interim Storage, it is not the safest option. The waste should be put in Hardened Onsite Storage (HOSS) at the reactors where it was made until there is a viable plan for permanent storage. Centeralized Interim Storage is just HOSS somewhere else, which puts every community on every transport route, and each "centeralized" location in danger. If States don't like keeping their radioactive waste around then, again, they should stop making it.

Editorial l NYTimes  July 4, 2012

Lawmakers and policy planners must revive the search for safe ways to store used fuel rods from nuclear power reactors. The long-term solution favored by most experts, which we endorse, is to bury the material in geologically stable formations capable of preventing leakage far into the future.

But no politically acceptable site has yet been found, and leaving the used fuel rods at each reactor — more than 62,000 metric tons had accumulated across the country by the end of 2009 — seems increasingly problematic. At least nine states have banned the construction of new reactors until a permanent storage site is found or progress toward finding one is made. The only potential permanent storage site examined so far — at Yucca Mountain in Nevada — has been blocked for more than two decades by technical problems, legal challenges and political opposition from the state.

President Obama pledged in the 2008 campaign to shut down the project, and his Energy Department withdrew its application for a license before the safety of the project could be evaluated. Mitt Romney said in a primary debate in Nevada that the state’s people should have the final say. Even without a permanent disposal facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a “waste confidence decision” in 2010 that asserted that used fuel rods could be stored at power plants for 60 years after they close down. It also asserted that a permanent repository would be ready to handle such wastes “when necessary.”

Read full text

Hanford has been called the most contaminated spot in the western hemisphere. A cautionary monument to the cost of war and nuclear ambitions. It is one of the places the world should be looking as long as there continue to be arguments made in favor of nuclear energy use.

Decades after their construction; long after the energy has been "used" (much of it wasted in inefficient processes); long after billions of gallons of irreplaceable water have been used up and contaminated- the reactors and their forever deadly waste remain. The reactors are showing their age- leaking and cracking, but the waste will be with us, in human terms, forever. 

What this means is that we face a deadly problem without a real solution. At Hanford alone there are:

56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.

And, at Hanford, they are struggling to contain it. But, history is proving that the waste may not be containable, not in time, or for enough time, to be ever be considered safe. Not at Hanford, the other Cold War sites, or at "ordinary" reactor sites located all around the world. They say "to the victor go the spoils," but in this case, the victor will spoil everything. Because, to the growing horror of a slowly awakening post-Fukushima world- it is clear that with nuclear, the waste is winning.

Peter Eisler, USA Today l 25 January, 2012

even decades after scientists came here during World War II to create plutonium for the first atomic bomb, a new generation is struggling with an even more daunting task: cleaning up the radioactive mess.

The U.S. government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.

A USA TODAY investigation has found that the troubled, 10-year effort to build the treatment plant faces enormous problems just as it reaches what was supposed to be its final stage.

In exclusive interviews, several senior engineers cited design problems that could bring the plant's operations to a halt before much of the waste is treated. Their reports have spurred new technical reviews and raised official concerns about the risk of a hydrogen explosion or uncontrolled nuclear reaction inside the plant. Either could damage critical equipment, shut the facility down or, worst case, allow radiation to escape.

The plant's $12.3 billion price tag, already triple original estimates, is well short of what it will cost to address the problems and finish the project. And the plant's start-up date, originally slated for last year and pushed back to its current target of 2019, is likely to slip further.

"We're continuing with a failed design," said Donald Alexander, a senior U.S. government scientist on the project.

"There's a lot of pressure … from Congress, from the state, from the community to make progress," he added. As a result, "the design processes are cut short, the safety analyses are cut short, and the oversight is cut short. … We have to stop now and figure out how to do this right, before we move any further."

Read full text

  October 5, 2011 Re: Blue Ribbon Commission’s July 29, 2011 Draft Report The following are PSR’s comments on the Blue Ribbon Commission’s Draft Report dated July 29, 2011. PSR supports the BRC’s draft recommendations to develop one or more perman...

David Crosby l Huffington Post  21 September, 2011 Lets go through it again, shall we? We'll keep it simple, and not even wander into the economics of it. First of all, human beings make mistakes. You simply can't argue with that -- no one can arg...

North Anna "firsts":

First US nuclear plant to have "protective electrical devices" shaken so hard by an earthquake that the reactors shut down.

First US nuclear plant to have earthquake shake ground so hard that twenty-five, 115 ton, spent fuel storage casks moved on their pads from 1-4 1/2 inches. 

But, nothing to worry about...?

Richmond Times Dispatch l Peter Bacque 31 August, 2011

Last week's central Virginia earthquake caused 25 spent-fuel storage casks — each weighing 115 tons — to move on their concrete pad at Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna nuclear power plant.

The shifting of these massive casks holding used nuclear fuel was the first caused by an earthquake in the U.S., according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

None of the metal cylinders was damaged and no radiation was released, Dominion Virginia Power said.

Like hockey pucks on a jostled tray, the 16-foot tall casks shifted from an inch to 4½ inches, utility company spokesman Rick Zuercher said.

Read full text

The future will have some choice thoughts about us. Are we thinking of them?

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists l Allison Macfarlane  6 July, 2011

Abstract

In light of Japan’s nuclear disaster, a major lesson can be learned related to the back end of the fuel cycle: Planning is necessary for the safe and secure management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. But the topic of storing waste continues to be subject to last-minute solutions, as the experiences of a number of countries besides Japan show. Countries with nuclear power programs need a medium-term strategy for spent fuel storage prior to the long-term plan for spent fuel or high-level waste disposal. Though difficult, the disposal of high-level nuclear waste is possible, and a clear strategy to develop a repository combines both technical and societal criteria in a phased approach. After Fukushima, it is now imperative to redefine what makes a successful nuclear power program—from cradle to grave. Nuclear waste management must be designed from the beginning; otherwise, the public in many countries will reject nuclear as an energy choice.

Though nuclear power produces electricity with little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions, it, like other energy sources, is not without its own set of waste products. And in the case of nuclear power, most of these wastes are radioactive.¹ Some very low level nuclear wastes can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings. Other nuclear waste must remain sequestered for a few hundred years in specially engineered subsurface facilities; this is the case with low level waste, which is composed of low concentrations of long-lived radionuclides and higher concentrations of short-lived ones. Intermediate and high-level waste both require disposal hundreds of meters under the Earth’s surface, where they must remain out of harm’s way for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (IAEA, 2009). Intermediate level wastes are not heat-emitting, but contain high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. High-level wastes, including spent nuclear fuel and wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuel, are both heat-emitting and highly radioactive.

Today, 437 nuclear reactors are in use around the world in 31 countries. In addition, more than 60 countries have expressed an interest in acquiring nuclear power for electricity production in the future (IAEA, 2010). Each reactor will produce its own wastes. Yet no repository exists for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world.² Even the topic of storing waste continues to be a minor priority in the planning stages. But this lack of foresight does not come without consequences: Reactor sites can be overburdened with spent fuel without a clear plan for dealing with this material in a timely manner. This is the case right now in South Korea, where the country’s utility foresees a crisis in the next 10 years as the storage at all of the country’s four nuclear plants fills up. The United Arab Emirates, which broke ground on its first nuclear facility on March 14, 2011 and is set to bring four nuclear reactors online beginning in 2017, has yet to announce storage as a priority. Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and current chairman of the UAE’s International Advisory Board notes, “The question of a final disposal plan is still open and more attention should be spent on deciding what to do” (DiPaola, 2011).

When it comes to the severity of an accident at a nuclear facility, there may be little difference between those that occur at the front end of the nuclear power production and those at the back end: An accident involving spent nuclear fuel can pose a threat as disastrous as that posed by reactor core meltdowns. In particular, if spent fuel pools are damaged or are not actively cooled, a major crisis could be in sight, especially if the pools are packed with recently discharged spent fuel.

So why, if the danger is comparable to that at the front end, is there so little foresight and planning regarding the back end of the fuel cycle? Certainly for nuclear engineers, there are more rewards for reactor design than waste disposal. The nuclear industry in general has focused on electricity production, and few players in the field of electricity generation writ large put much time and effort into clean-up of their waste products—just think about the coal and natural gas industries and the production of mine wastes, ash ponds, waste water from gas extraction, and, of course, carbon dioxide. Put bluntly, money is made on the front end, not on the back end. But the reality, as South Korea is now realizing, is that a lack of planning for waste streams may cause the front end to collapse, halting the production of nuclear energy. This planning should include a medium-term strategy for spent fuel storage prior to the long-term plan for spent fuel or high-level waste disposal.³

Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven spent fuel pools—one at each reactor and a large, additional, joint pool—as well as dry cask storage for spent fuel on site. Initially, Japan had planned a short period of spent fuel storage at the reactor site prior to reprocessing, but Japan’s reprocessing facility has suffered long delays (it was expected to begin operations in 2007, but is still not open), causing spent fuel to build up at reactor sites. In light of the country’s nuclear disaster, a major lesson can be learned related to the back end of the fuel cycle: specifically, that careful planning, not ad hoc solutions, is necessary for spent nuclear fuel. A strategy for dealing with nuclear waste is essential to a successful nuclear power program, and it is best enacted early in the planning of a nuclear power program.

Read full text

Rumors about the Howard /Bush deal have been floating around for years, but will Alexander Downer's desire for huge profits turn Australia into the world's radioactive waste dump? If this is on the Australian table, why is no-one talking about it? The dangers of transport, issues of land ownership, the viability of this even being feasible in the sense of safety? If this is being considered, it needs to be considered openly, not in back room deals. This proposed site is over Australia's largest aquifer, its major source of drinking water. Should this become contaminated, what would be the plan? It would be impossible to remediate. Australia needs to know what is being proposed, and then Australians must say a resounding NO! 

Independent Australia l 18 April, 2011

Despite the Fukushima disaster, Alexander Downer has come out in support of Australia storing the world’s nuclear waste. Sandi Keane looks at the secret plans developed by John Howard and George W. Bush to turn Australia into the world’s radioactive waste dump, with healthy profits for all. Is this how Tony Abbott plans to pay for “direct action”on climate change?

Is the Fukushima nuclear fallout heading for Australia?  Yes, if Alexander Downer and the Liberal Party have anything to do with it. But, relax, dear reader. I’m not talking about some large, menacing radioactive cloud lighting up our northern skies. No, I’m alerting you to another kind of nuclear fallout threat from Fukushima: the urgent need to find a place to store the world’s deadly waste.

Fukushima’s reactors were inside thick containment walls but the waste, or to use nuclear spin, spent fuel rods, were out in the open.  Two of the three ponds lost their roofs in explosions, exposing the spent fuel pools to the atmosphere, eventually catching fire and spreading the radiation. Unfortunately, this is the practice followed by many countries around the world.  There is simply no safe place to store the waste so it is often stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site.

This is the grim reality of the nuclear experiment. Forty years ago, when the first reactors were built, it was naively assumed that a solution would eventually be found to store or recycle the waste safely.  For 3 million years?  Might this not transcend the scale of man’s experience?   In hindsight it was a fatal mistake.  We now know that the frequency of earthquakes is increasing due to global warming as is extreme weather.  There will be more Fukushimas.  Our World Heritage listed national park, Kakadu, is also now threatened with radiation from the Ranger mine due to heavy rain.  So we can’t even mine the stuff safely any more.

Antinuclear fear in the aftermath of Fukushima is consuming the global psyche with public demonstrations in Japan, Germany and France.   The world may be “over” nuclear, but the legacy of the toxic waste will last for millions of years. Generations to come will wonder at the greed and stupidity of their forebears.  Build it, make the money and run is the credo of our generation.  Leave the problems to future generations who will foot the bill – if they and the planet survive.

Read full text

Independent Australia

Despite the Fukushima disaster, Alexander Downer has come out in support of Australia storing the world’s nuclear waste. Sandi Keane looks at the secret plans developed by John Howard and George W. Bush to turn Australia into the world’s radioactive waste dump, with healthy profits for all. Is this how Tony Abbott plans to pay for “direct action”on climate change?

Is the Fukushima nuclear fallout heading for Australia?  Yes, if Alexander Downer and the Liberal Party have anything to do with it. But, relax, dear reader. I’m not talking about some large, menacing radioactive cloud lighting up our northern skies. No, I’m alerting you to another kind of nuclear fallout threat from Fukushima: the urgent need to find a place to store the world’s deadly waste.

Fukushima’s reactors were inside thick containment walls but the waste, or to use nuclear spin, spent fuel rods, were out in the open.  Two of the three ponds lost their roofs in explosions, exposing the spent fuel pools to the atmosphere, eventually catching fire and spreading the radiation. Unfortunately, this is the practice followed by many countries around the world.  There is simply no safe place to store the waste so it is often stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site.

This is the grim reality of the nuclear experiment...

Read full text