Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - A second group of Fukushima residents are allowed to return to evacuation zone.->

Submitted by siddesu
siddesu (698447) writes "A group of people who lived within the 20-kilometer restricted zone surrounding the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant are asked to return home, the second time the "right of return" has been granted, despite opposition to the government decision by residents and medical researchers."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:First.... (Score 2) 288

by siddesu (#46879349) Attached to: Decommissioning Nuclear Plants Costing Far More Than Expected

Gen 4 reactors will happily run in a way that it effectively reprocesses its own waste. It's also got passive safety and the resulting waste (which at this point really isn't fuel) has a half-life well short of the hundred years.

They are also fictional. We'll be able to judge how well they operate and how they reprocess own waste when we see one operating safely for some time.

Comment: Re:First.... (Score 1) 288

by siddesu (#46876419) Attached to: Decommissioning Nuclear Plants Costing Far More Than Expected

No, it is not fuel. Part of it may become fuel if one is allowed to reprocess it. Reprocessing, however, is a very tightly regulated business, and in many places, for example in the US, or in Japan, or in Russia it is not an option, or not a very important option. Do you know why it isn't a wide-spread, happy industry? Yep, because it is expensive as hell, dangerous and dual-use.

Here's a fun experiment to do: stop pretending you carry a cesium source and a Geiger counter, and consider what should be done with the 1000+ tons of highly radioactive mud that is already collected on-site in Fukushima. Right next to the used fuel pool.

Please make it a rational solution that can guarantee no leaks for a few hundred years and doesn't cost a brazillion billion million yen.

Thanks.

Comment: Re:First.... (Score 4, Informative) 288

by siddesu (#46875703) Attached to: Decommissioning Nuclear Plants Costing Far More Than Expected

One, you have serious reading comprehension issues. OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.

Two, that SA article has been debunked so many times, it isn't even funny. The 'research' it is based on is from 1977 and it discusses coal plants that aren't built anymore. Here, for your reading pleasure: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

Working...