Does Mr. Nightmare know this?

That's funny.

fish have legs?

@@darkshadowsx5949 Coelacanths do.

Brilliant 😂

you're in shock comrade

I heard £50 billion is spent on corrosion prevention in the UK every year so £54 billion for an entire project doesn't seem like much in that perspective.

GET THIS MAN TO THE INFIRMARY! HES DELUSIONAL

£16Billion more than the UK deffence budget, I'd say that's a fair bit!

@Phil Weatherley the project is almost complete, they are ready to start retrieving the waste. Only thing holding it back is the plant where it is going to be stored, due to Covod 19 there has been some delays.

If they wanted to do a proper job of it, they would've designed Sellafield better on creation. But because of cost cutting at the beginning, it's made doing a proper job of it even more hazardous and costly today.

@@koolyman exactly, so having the media be like "look how expensive this is!!!!" trying to drum up ghate for nuclear because of these epenses. all it could ever lead to is peopl ein future calling for less money inot nuclear and thus more cost cutting that leads to this sort of problem, or worse.

@@ge2719 However it does show that perhaps the overall extraordinary cost of nuclear power is not worth it; and that we should rely far more sustainable, renewable sources... That is until the boffins develop fusion, but that is currently quite distant.

@@koolyman the cost decreasws the more tech we develop just lioe all tech. To stop using a source of energy this abundant and powerfull because we didnt use it properly in the past woiod be silly logic. by the logic we would have stopped uaing petrolium all togethwr after we found out leaded petrol was bad. We wouod have gotten rid of fridges when we found out cfls were making a hole in he ozone. we will never develop cleaner and cheaper methods of nuclear power if we stop investing in nuclear energy. We can invest in both.

Because money is never a factor in these situations, right? Just vote for the proper green candidate who can simply 'will' a solution into existence, yes?

Also only a 5% meltdown.

@@owlman4167 okay Jesus mad respect but not really, sure its not as contaminated as it used to be but there are places in Russia 200km away where levels are just as high as the middle of the exclusion zone due to rain 2 days after the incident, inside the reactor is still very radioactive and if one were to live in the exclusion zone and indeed those within 200kn receive dangerously high long term doses, there are many hot spots and contaminated objects as well as location that were not cleaned, so yes residential areas and roads are "okay" but forests and soil is very bad as well as the level of ionized particles which was very high until the new arch was fitted, so it is still very contaminated and would be more so had it not been for the sacrificial cleanup efforts

They said in the news article that it's multiple times more radioactive than Chernobyl

@@aabra6265 because of the differences in the fuel used at chernobyl and the stuff being stored at sellafield.

@Fred Yes it is.

No. Those are "the optimists" glasses...

Nightmare = “challenging technical piece of work we have to do”

@Look behind You He really looks like he recieved an overdose of radiation and the glasses make it even worse.

Tuppoo94 Processing nuclear waste is often dangerous and not economical considering how much cheaper it is to just buy more fuel. This is a problem of old storage techniques that aren't used anymore(at least not in the west). Nowadays it is stored in movable concrete capsules that are monitored constantly and can be moved and buried or further encased if any danger of leakage exists.

@@simonphoenix3789 not right, after reprocessing the storage is simplified, and the time required for storage is reduced. Yeah its an expense. but its worth it when you consider the results.

Nuclear Waste has been dumped into the British Channel And radioactive pollution has been introduced into our environment and food change.

Sellafield’s worst known accident was in November of 1983 when radioactive wastes escaped into the Irish sea. These wastes were produced during reprocessing. In other words, they WERE processing nuclear wastes they made.

​@@douglasskaalrud6865you gorgot about the billions of barrels the Irish and Brits dumped in the British channel tons and tons of it

Fire it all into space

CraigDCrocodile They never come straight out and say things. Besides, he could reason, if it's good enough for Fukushima, it's good enough for us.

Superpureeliteful I always thought the Baltic Sea was even worse. I have read that Sellafield is partially to blame for that. Sweden is mostly to blame. People eat the fish caught in the Baltic Sea as if they don't know about it. I don't eat those fish or any fish from the Pacific. Probably the Atlantic is very radioactive too. No one is going to tell us otherwise.

@@Bevity I'm quite sure it is not Sweden nor Finland to blame for the radioactivity in the Baltic but the ussr and Poland. However that is not why you shouldn't eat fish from the Baltic sea that is mercury and other heavy metals that partly is there naturally and partly becourse the ussr didn't understand that the ocean don't just make things disappear however most ppl in the west thought the same up till the 70's

Kenneth Hermann I guess my point is... not exactly who is the biggest radioactive polluter of the Baltic Sea, but that there are SO MANY sources. I know about the mercury, dioxins, PCBs, etc. too. It is a small body of water that only has about 1% water exchange with other bodies of water, so all of this pollution just keeps building up. I went to Poland and ordered fish at a restaurant, forgetting where the fish came from. It was so good, and enormous portions. I remembered after, but it was only the once. Don't eat fish from the Baltic Sea!

J S Oh, well then. Everything is great. No problem at all then. Eat as many fish as you can. Pig out.

or we just know how to properly manage radioactive material.

Ashley Goggs yeah just dump it into the Irish Sea.

It says something that Sellafield is trying to contain their waste so tightly. Natural Gas and Coal can pump it freely into the air for everyone to breathe every day. Maybe they should be subject to the same standards. Surely their bottom line wouldn't be impacted... would it?

nothing to compare here, gas to nuclear waste it is ridiculous @@Caiddenn

The original 1975 version of "Radio-Activity" didn't have the nuclear disaster sites' names in the lyrics, they added them for the 1991 remixed & rearranged version of the song, along with "Harrisburg", "Chernobyl", "Hiroshima" (recently swapped for "Fukushima").

Dumping things down old mine shafts is exactly what the recent proposal for new coal mines in Cumbria is all about; when the mines are exhausted, with shafts deep under the Irish Sea, the exhausted mines will be back-filled with nuclear waste.

You're spewing nonsense and lies. You can't just dump high level radioactive waste into the sea. You can't hide something like that. Someone somewhere would detect it. The only attempts was made with throwing it into subduction zones of the tectonic plates, but that's stupid. That waste isn't a waste. It's precious material for the future industry.

@J S they dumped metal barrels into the sea until 1992 when it was banned. There's an extensive video about it on here. Some of the barrels rusted away, some are still intact.

@J S we might have stopped in the 80s but the international agreement was in 1992. Pipeline discharges from Sellafield and La Hague are still permitted though there are 2020 and 2030 targets for a reduction.

@J S sea discharges involve releasing low level waste directly into the sea. Sea dumping involves dumping barrels into the sea. They both involve disposing of waste into the sea. I'm saying that the end of barrel dumping was not the end of dumping waste into the sea.

This statement give made is Fact 👍

FINALLY, Someone who understands why it needs to be done. A lot of people in these comments who don't understand the potential severity of the situation. Let's leave it and let it collapse, save our 54b and contaminate the Northern hemisphere.

Haha.

steve culley ahh, you live close by then. Does they water leave that refreshing tingle / burning sensation?

@@riverdeep399 Background radiation is STILL radiation. You are being irradiated right now. You'll probably survive it, because your body repairs radiation damage (mostly - read the small print). The world is less radioactive now than it has ever been. If you understood what radiation was, you'd already know this. Life evolved under much heavier radioactivity. The Irish Sea is fucking cold to swim in, and definitely makes one tingle.

@@riverdeep399 how did you come to that conclusion from a joke? guess much or just make it up? blithering idiot

Epic 👍🏼

Vulcan GBR agreed! His teeth were gross too!

@Bunker Sieben they are known to help people with dyslexia.

I'm no expert, but i know that the eyes are a good spot for radiation to enter your body deeply. I guess he wants to avoid that...

Dude is so rolling in money.

I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses And everything is rosy now.

Has the radiation killed as many people as the bombs you gave us?

Sorry on behalf of the majority here who never agreed to it and are getting the same problems down our west coast. Good old tories are after a new round of nuclear reactors despite not clearing up the mess from the first lot!

is that Scottish ??

The Midnight Entity.

Ah it was just Herbert the six legged chicken

odd they dont really invest cash into research that might substantially reduce the amount of waste. odd because since the 1950s quite a lot of progress has been made in nuclear science. just look at france for instance. 90%+ nuclear and renewable. cleanest air in europe. trust the brits to hamfist the whole process. solid fuel nuclear reactors need to be made a thing of the past with improved technology.

It's because it's weapons waste, not standard commercial waste :/ In commercial waste, the radioactive stuff is kept trapped within the fuel & the cladding. So it's really not too hard to deal with. But if you want to get to the juicy weapons plutonium that's also stuck in the fuel, you have to dissolve the cladding/fuel. Which of course releases the trapped radioactive elements and liquifies already nasty stuff, making it much harder to clean up. This is bad enough when they do a "good" job, let alone the absolute messes they made with early weapons programs. (For an example of what I'm talking about, compare commercial "dry casks" to the barrels of liquid weapons waste at Hanford, WA)

Matthew Suffidy that's why it was built. Must also be the only reason they are bothering with it. You're right. Revival.

The earnings are made and saved, as the tax payer will pay for solving the problems.

as well indeed

@Amed Tajan yes they have a tour of one of the reactors and a museum.

It almost sounds nice

how many Sievert are in the place you live ?

Other than tenant farming, Sellafield must be the next biggest employer in Cumbria...................and much better paid than farming

@@smitbar11 oh yeah, without Sellafield the entire county would shrivel up and die.

@@puporossi4888 dunno but I heard the readybrek man is from round here 😸

This is a widely acknowledged fact. Completely indisputable. The guys involved in the weapons program would probably happily confirm that too,

Marcus Reynolds Great. :/ and still they want more nuke plants. It ain't to help with the energy crisis, that's for sure. What god awful weapon are they constructing now...

I know people who work there. It’s not great but not in that way.

@@DSQueenie not a bomb but more a disaster waiting to happen in terms of nuclear waste leaking into the environment

so... 2billions euro to get the job done, 48b for greasing that fat bureaucratic British machine yup! it's all there, no mistakes... it would've cost 3billions to get it done thank god with the bureaucracy in place we saved 1b.. it's about how much senses there is to it....

yabadoo completely agree with you, if radiation was so dangerous, all airline pilots, and all people on the ISS should end up far worse than they do. They experience far more radiation than someone working at the sellafield plant would on a daily basis.

@@TheSkippyboy Radiation is incredibly dangerous, but that doesn't mean that sellafield isn't safe.

Any idiot with a Geiger counter can see it’s perfectly safe there. This man is delusional take him to the infirmary!

Don't eat the seaweed....problem solved.

Nick002 Im told the situation at Sellafield is completely under control, theyre are reports of only 3.6 roentgens

Actually it costs the tax-payer the same as about 40 X-rays, HS2 is more like 400 chest x-rays, and those Chinese building Hinckley point C are getting 4 million chest x-rays!

yes! that's science!! now all they have to do is to push on the next two generation so they find a solution

Not much.

solar panel doesn’t help much when it is only panel 😎

Irrelevent, since this a legacy site of the UK nuclear weapons programme, and needs to be cleaned up properly whatever the financial cost.

I feel uncomfortable living on the same planet 😭

I feel bad living in the same county as this place😖😖

intolerable is an industry term, its not "intolerable" in the human sense/definition of the term. it means that it needs to be replaced/repaired as soon as possible it doesnt mean that it is an immediate danger

I live within 10 miles of this place!

Frizocean331 cool?

It probably is 3.6 roentgen.

it started when it was called Windscale. They classed filters in the chimney as a folly but it helped when they cut fins on the uranium shuttles to speed up plutonium harvesting. It caused the reactor to catch fire and those filters saved a lot of pollution. Now they want a deep storage at Theddlethorpe for high level waste, knowing funds are tight we fear the worst here.

Those are very clearly Jackdaws...

@Bunker Sieben Yes, putted shortly lead is the stable form of Uranium. And that's why it is so good at stopping radiation, beta and gamma rays in particular : it remains very dense, and full of electrons.

Cumbria.

What country is Cumbria in?

England.

Thanks for the info Rayn!

same

How many fingers you got?

Is he the old geezer chipping away at the containment lid while his nuts are in the way?

if they sank a nuke there they would potentially harm themselves. When the 1 reactor melted down in chernobyl the whole world detected radiation after a few days. Imagine what would happen if a nuke spewed thousands of tons of nuclear waste into the atmosphere. It would be like a slow burning mutually assured destruction .

I doubt a nuclear bomb on top of nuclear waste dump would make any difference to the damage caused.

@@snowflakemelter1172 it would kick it up into the atmosphere. Bombs are notorious for spreading radiation so dropping one on waste would likely enhance the amount of radiation being spread.

beingatliberty nuclear power creates 0 greenhouse gasses

@@thomashambly3718 Except from the massive amounts of GHGs from the cement used to make the power plant, the diesel burnt to mine the uranium, the cement used for waste storage etc. etc. it adds up, it is not zero.

@@uber1337hakz I said nuclear power, not power stations

By nuclear you mean light water reactors and not gen 4 molten salt reactors?

@@uber1337hakz How about the cost and damage to the earth to find the rare metals needed for solar panels? They move mountains to find indium, neodymium and others rare metals.

Are you joking right ? Oh look lets use machines that might create sparks ..... and we all go boom.

@@amandacary6812 As the actress said to the Bishop....if you've never done it before, just poke it like you would with a stick.

its waste stored in water so theres no real threat unless you touch the water

And a spelling contest too!

Tony_Fcking_Montana we're over run with them. Just waiting until they realise. This is thanks to Baby Boomer greed. They shafted their children. What a legacy.

yeah so how would someone bomb it?

The buildings and boxes are heavily fortified. Sellafield is a no fly zone, try and get even a drone over the perimeter and see what happens to it.

There's more radioactive material at Sellafield than Chernobyl. I guess it depends how you define "contaminated".

Site with buildings and pools of radioactive waste requiring a 100 year cleanup = good. Solar panels = bad. You're just as ignorant as people who think coal and oil are cleaner than solar.

@@danem2215 when did I say solar bad? All I did was try to point out that people like you who think that nuclear forms "pools" (seriously 😂 sad) and who think there's no waste or deaths from solar are pathetic children who don't care about the planet and only about their own egos

Wrong. Thorium reactors produce uranium 232 which is highly radioactive, so much so that humans can not handle it as in get anywhere near it. Only with remote control and video can you manipulate U232.

and they still will.

it all makes perfect sense when looked at in pounds shillings and pence.

no radiation was released for gods sake radiation came over the uk in the 80s beacuse of chernoble

Stuart Smith we the tax bitches do. Ask who diverts the funds... ask what weapon they are cooking up next..

It's safe

M€ because a greedy baby boomer tells us so.

Nothing says safe like crumbling open air ponds and buildings with no records of what's in them full of hazardous waste that they used to dump into the sea.

This is waste from a REALLY badly designed reactor intended to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. It was an air-cooled open-cycle graphite pile reactor. No nuclear power reactor uses the same technology.

Renewable is less expensive and dangerous. Just facts

Solar and wind energy is a joke. Only coal or nuclear is an existing solution today. Maybe within 10 years nuclear fusion. That is the reality

@@shootermcgavin4559 but doesn't generate what industry even needs to produce the materiels to make them.

This had nothing to do with electricity. It was the result of the weapons program during the cold War. Past generations were careless with producing the plutonium, so current generations are tasked with cleaning it up. You think 54 billion is a lot, let's just abandon it, see what happens when the most dangerous building in Europe collapses.

Toopy Anne Binoo better than coal. They just did it “wrong” in this case

The FBI Ummm... No? It was never _for_ public consumption. It was to build weapons of *"Mass destruction"* ... to impress the US.

@Epic erm actually i think he knows plenty !

@@mindoza44 As far as the bomb was concerned, anything the Yanks did the Brits had to do as well…..well not so well, but they got there in the end.....now to get out.

Judging by the old man using a crowbar on the lid on the nuclear waste container at 5:02 I think your right

Latest idea is to stick the waste into exhausted coal mines; building coal mines close to Sellafield site has just been approved for "coking coal" for steel production.

@@tommorris3688 By the time it becomes a real health hazard on a day to day basis you and anyone yet to be born will all be dead from old age so never mind the cost enjoy the "free" energy production while they are still allowed to do it. BTW, did you know that low level radiation over a prolonged period is the cheapest form of birth control and you don't have to take any pills to achieve 100% success? it's Nature's answer to the over population problem and also biodiversity.

yes it is, it's more radioactive than chernobyl!

You are wrong