These convoys carry up to six nuclear warheads along public roads from AWE Burghfield (near Aldermaston) to RNAD Coulport, west of Glasgow.
Video of Nuclear Warhead Convoy near Reading
Slarti | 19.02.2007 17:57 | Anti-militarism | Ecology | Oxford
Slarti
Homepage:
http://www.nukewatch.org.uk/video1.php
Additions
Oops
19.02.2007 18:01
Sorry, that should have read "...up to six nuclear warheads EVERY 6-8 WEEKS along public roads..."
Slarti
m.a.d.
20.02.2007 01:45
Wow really proffesional video, there needs to be a lot of gaurds for that convoy, what a waste!
Nuclear technology is unstustainable & in all forms presents a gift to mass killer terrorists wether those of a state or a religious nature.
Whats happening to our nuclear waste?,
Many NATO nations dump it on poorer countries or recycle into uranium shells to keep Iraq democratic by mutating the genes & those of soldiers serving in the area as birth defects in the region have shown
Derby has its own Rolls Royce factor with reactor helping make these shells as I write, & thats really safe for Derby, yeah.
Fusion, Pebble reactors,radioactive energy from the sea & other radioactive technologies are still dangerous & WMD, whilst we live in a corporate war economy it will be used for one thing,
uranium mining is big business creating money for mining companies & weapons.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=145140
Apparently efforts to recover U from seawater were abandoned in the 1970s when studies concluded that it would cost about $1400 / lb. At the time, the spot price of U was about $40/lb.If the cost of recovering U from sea water can be brought down to $100 a pound, (current price is around $62 US/lb), there would appear to be a virtually unlimited supply of U for nuclear reactors. Work on U recovery from seawater in Japan indicates that the cost may be approaching this level. Given the huge enrichment cost, the actual cost of U is a pretty small part of the total fuel cost.
Question:
So what would the advantage be of fusion?
In strictly economic terms, the enormous research and development cost for a fusion reactor would seem to be better directed at recovering U from seawater and using the U in seawater instead of the H for energy.
Yeah, not many people seem to realize that fusion has nuclear waste as well (less, but still non-zero). The main advantae of fusion versus fission seems to be that a reactor meltdown stops on its own with fusion. But the disadvantage so far with fusion seems to be that the easier RX to achieve are plenty dirty. But if we could sustain the cleaner fusion RX.... this has not been answered
Nuclear technology is unstustainable & in all forms presents a gift to mass killer terrorists wether those of a state or a religious nature.
Whats happening to our nuclear waste?,
Many NATO nations dump it on poorer countries or recycle into uranium shells to keep Iraq democratic by mutating the genes & those of soldiers serving in the area as birth defects in the region have shown
Derby has its own Rolls Royce factor with reactor helping make these shells as I write, & thats really safe for Derby, yeah.
Fusion, Pebble reactors,radioactive energy from the sea & other radioactive technologies are still dangerous & WMD, whilst we live in a corporate war economy it will be used for one thing,
uranium mining is big business creating money for mining companies & weapons.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=145140 Apparently efforts to recover U from seawater were abandoned in the 1970s when studies concluded that it would cost about $1400 / lb. At the time, the spot price of U was about $40/lb.If the cost of recovering U from sea water can be brought down to $100 a pound, (current price is around $62 US/lb), there would appear to be a virtually unlimited supply of U for nuclear reactors. Work on U recovery from seawater in Japan indicates that the cost may be approaching this level. Given the huge enrichment cost, the actual cost of U is a pretty small part of the total fuel cost.
Question:
So what would the advantage be of fusion?
In strictly economic terms, the enormous research and development cost for a fusion reactor would seem to be better directed at recovering U from seawater and using the U in seawater instead of the H for energy.
Yeah, not many people seem to realize that fusion has nuclear waste as well (less, but still non-zero). The main advantae of fusion versus fission seems to be that a reactor meltdown stops on its own with fusion. But the disadvantage so far with fusion seems to be that the easier RX to achieve are plenty dirty. But if we could sustain the cleaner fusion RX.... this has not been answered
R Ludd
