Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK

Unbiased reporting????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>
> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>
> Unbiased reporting????
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>
All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters in
response to this news...

"Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
conference."

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>
>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>
>> Unbiased reporting????
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>
> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters in
> response to this news...
>
> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
> conference."
>
> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c

The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a) with
the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could still
be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old design, old
buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear weapons during the
Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power generation.

On 05/12/2023 10:21, SteveW wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>
>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>
>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>
>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>> in response to this news...
>>
>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>> conference."
>>
>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>
> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a) with
> the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could still
> be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old design, old
> buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear weapons during the
> Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power generation.
>

I suspect Chernobyl is the most dangerous site in Europe.

Sellafield is unlikely to be able to emit large doses of intense
radiation simply because there are no chain reactions taking place -
merely atomic decay.

Any operational nuclear power station is more potentially dangerous.

And while Sellafield and Dounreay will both produce upticks on a Geiger
counter, by far and away the most radioactive parts of Britain are
Exmoor, Dartmoor and Aberdeen, where volcanic granite lies at the surface.

The video has already been reported by hundreds of people as a source of
misinformation.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 05/12/2023 11:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 10:21, SteveW wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>>
>>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>>
>>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>>> in response to this news...
>>>
>>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>>> conference."
>>>
>>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>>
>> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a)
>> with the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous
>> could still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old
>> design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear
>> weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power
>> generation.
>>
>
> I suspect Chernobyl is the most dangerous site in Europe.
>
> Sellafield is unlikely to be able to emit large doses of intense
> radiation simply because there are no chain reactions taking place -
> merely atomic decay.
>
> Any operational nuclear power station  is more potentially dangerous.
>
> And while Sellafield and Dounreay will both produce upticks on a Geiger
> counter, by far and away the most radioactive parts of Britain are
> Exmoor, Dartmoor and Aberdeen, where volcanic granite lies at the surface.
>
> The video has already been reported by hundreds of people as a source of
> misinformation.

While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.

Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>
>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>
>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>
>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>> in response to this news...
>>
>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>> conference."
>>
>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>
> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a) with
> the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could still
> be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old design, old
> buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear weapons during the
> Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power generation.
>

Didn't we leave Europe?

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

>
> Didn't we leave Europe?
>
No we left the EU, not Europe
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:

>
> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>
Plume of what exactly?

AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
as it has in the past.

In article <uknbdp$67pd$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
> > On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
> >>>
> >>> Unbiased reporting????
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
> >>>
> >> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
> >> in response to this news...
> >>
> >> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
> >> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
> >> conference."
> >>
> >> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
> >
> > The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a) with
> > the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could
> > still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old
> > design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear
> > weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power
> > generation.
> >

> Didn't we leave Europe?

I don't think geography was affected by Brexit.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4tщВ
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 05 Dec 2023 at 15:09:00 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>
>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
>> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
>> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
>> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
>> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
>> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>
> Plume of what exactly?
>
> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
> as it has in the past.

Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the building, and
what is it stored in?

--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion, not equality."

Dan Hannan

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 14:17:28 +0000
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
> > On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
> >>>
> >>> Unbiased reporting????
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
> >>>
> >> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable
> >> paymasters in response to this news...
> >>
> >> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling
> >> global nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate
> >> change conference."
> >>
> >> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
> >>
> >
> > The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a)
> > with the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous
> > could still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to
> > old design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for
> > nuclear weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern,
> > civilian, power generation.
>
> Didn't we leave Europe?
>

No, just the EU. Better=known people than you have tried to conflate the
two, normally for the purpose of deception. I do not impute that motive
to you.

--
Joe

Am 05/12/2023 um 15:06 schrieb alan_m:
> On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>
>>
>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>>
>  No we left the EU, not Europe

Then we should leave Europe too.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Am 05/12/2023 um 15:15 schrieb charles:
> In article <uknbdp$67pd$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
>>> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>>>
>>>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>>>
>>>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>>>> in response to this news...
>>>>
>>>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>>>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>>>> conference."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>>>
>>> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a) with
>>> the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could
>>> still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old
>>> design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear
>>> weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power
>>> generation.
>>>
>
>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>
> I don't think geography was affected by Brexit.
>

This is not the Brexit I voted for.

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 05/12/2023 16:34, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 05/12/2023 um 15:15 schrieb charles:
>> In article <uknbdp$67pd$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
>>>> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>>>>
>>>>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>>>>> in response to this news...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>>>>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>>>>> conference."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>>>>
>>>> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a) with
>>>> the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could
>>>> still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old
>>>> design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear
>>>> weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power
>>>> generation.
>>>>
>>
>>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>>
>> I don't think geography was affected by Brexit.
>>
>
> This is not the Brexit I voted for.
>

Quite, Apparently in March 2021 BoJo considered invading Europe, to
reclaim AstraZeneca vaccines withheld by Ursula Von den Lederhosen.

That was real leadership. He should have taken Europe like Zeus took Europa.

On 05/12/2023 16:33, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 05/12/2023 um 15:06 schrieb alan_m:
>> On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>>>
>>   No we left the EU, not Europe
>
> Then we should leave Europe too.
>

We are, slowly. Isn't the UK moving away from France by a
tiny amount every year ?. Hope those chunnels are elastic.

On 05/12/2023 15:09, Pancho wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>
>>
>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores
>> of old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of
>> which is part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the
>> danger it presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large
>> areas - and the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts
>> of large Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>
> Plume of what exactly?
>
> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
> as it has in the past.

The report that has triggered this also considers the possibilities of
an explosion or an air crash. It is worst case planning for things that
might, but are extremely unlikely to, happen.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 03:33:34 +1100, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Am 05/12/2023 um 15:06 schrieb alan_m:
>> On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>>>
>> No we left the EU, not Europe
>
> Then we should leave Europe too.

Bit hard to drag that soggy little frigid island further away.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 03:34:35 +1100, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Am 05/12/2023 um 15:15 schrieb charles:
>> In article <uknbdp$67pd$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
>>>> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>>>>
>>>>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>>>>> in response to this news...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>>>>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>>>>> conference."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>>>>
>>>> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a)
>>>> with
>>>> the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous could
>>>> still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old
>>>> design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear
>>>> weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power
>>>> generation.
>>>>
>>
>>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>> I don't think geography was affected by Brexit.
>>
>
> This is not the Brexit I voted for.

Your problem.

You could always set fire to yourself outside #10

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:44 +1100, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.dlg@sqwertz.com>

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:41:24 +1100, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1@news.mixmin.net>

On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 05/12/2023 um 10:21 schrieb SteveW:
>> On 05/12/2023 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2023 20:07, alan_m wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Europe's most dangerous nuclear site, in the UK
>>>>
>>>> Unbiased reporting????
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCC5h23pq4
>>>>
>>> All started by the guardian at the behest of its renewable paymasters
>>> in response to this news...
>>>
>>> "Twenty two countries have signed up to the goal of tripling global
>>> nuclear energy capacity by 2050, at the UN's COP28 climate change
>>> conference."
>>>
>>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ministerial-declaration-puts-nuclear-at-heart-of-c
>>
>> The Sellafield site is likely the most dangerous in Europe, but a)
>> with the heavy regulation of anything nuclear, the most dangerous
>> could still be very safe and b) the dangers will mainly be due to old
>> design, old buildings and old equipment from the race for nuclear
>> weapons during the Cold War and not due to modern, civilian, power
>> generation.
>>
>
> Didn't we leave Europe?

Not unless someone has managed to drag the UK out further into the Atlantic!

The EU and Europe are not the same thing.

On 05/12/2023 15:39, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 05 Dec 2023 at 15:09:00 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>>
>>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
>>> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
>>> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
>>> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
>>> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
>>> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>>
>> Plume of what exactly?
>>
>> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
>> as it has in the past.
>
> Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the building, and
> what is it stored in?

Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
radioactive materials up, not down.

On 05 Dec 2023 at 21:55:26 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 05/12/2023 15:39, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 05 Dec 2023 at 15:09:00 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>>>
>>>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
>>>> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
>>>> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
>>>> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
>>>> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
>>>> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>>>
>>> Plume of what exactly?
>>>
>>> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
>>> as it has in the past.
>>
>> Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the building, and
>> what is it stored in?
>
> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
> radioactive materials up, not down.

OK. So the water is the critical item, not the building (necessarily). Could
be safely stored in a deep pool (like old fuel rods are at the moment).

--
Tim

In article <uknjcu$7ic6$1@dont-email.me>,
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 05/12/2023 um 15:06 schrieb alan_m:
> > On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Didn't we leave Europe?
> >>
> > No we left the EU, not Europe

> Then we should leave Europe too.

You might need a large earthquake for that tom happnen

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4tщВ
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 05/12/2023 22:14, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 05 Dec 2023 at 21:55:26 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2023 15:39, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 05 Dec 2023 at 15:09:00 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
>>>>> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
>>>>> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
>>>>> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
>>>>> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
>>>>> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>>>>
>>>> Plume of what exactly?
>>>>
>>>> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
>>>> as it has in the past.
>>>
>>> Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the building, and
>>> what is it stored in?
>>
>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>
> OK. So the water is the critical item, not the building (necessarily). Could
> be safely stored in a deep pool (like old fuel rods are at the moment).

The materials in the silos has become a sludge - allowing the
radioactivity to decrease and the metals to corrode to a more easily
handled sludge, was the whole intent of storing it for decades.

Wxtraction of the sludge to store it elsewhere is carried out by a
couple of machines (weighing a couple of hundred tons apiece) that
remove it from the 5m square silos, through a 1m access, a grab-load at
a time, using extending rakes to level it and robot arms to deflect the
grab to cover the whole area and water-jet cutters for larger items.

The machines have to reposition regularly, so the sludge is dug out
evenly across all the silos, allowing the water level to be reduced
equally, so as not to crack the building further with unequal loadings.
The two machines can only safely pass each other at one point.

It is expected to take 20+ years to dig the sludge out. The whole point
of the work being to be able to get it out for re-storing - although
they are going to encapsulate it, not put it in another wet store. The
rate of digging out is the limiting factor, not the processing for storage.