Talk:Spent nuclear fuel shipping cask

message: The image we had was NOT of a spent nuclear fuel shipping cask - the picture was of canisters of transuranic waste from weapons production, and didn't look anything like a SNF cask.  I have requested an appropriate image from NEI. Simesa 02:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NEI sent two good  pics, and I've inserted both into the article. Simesa 21:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: haha, good catch. theanphibian 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Image 

message: This article seems well-written and mostly well-sourced.  However, a tag in the article implies material is copied from a published source, the Spent Fuel Package whatever.  Whether it is a public domain source or not, such material needs to be referenced properly: copied text needs quotation marks and in-line citations.  The tag, however, insults the work throughout the article by wikipedia editors, which is not distinguished from merely copied, improperly sourced material.  Why not separate the copied text and put it in quotes, properly, with proper in-line citations.  Then the tag would not be necessary. doncram (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied material in article 

message: I believe the U.S. standards described are derived from the standards set out in IAEA safety requirements TS-R-1, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, paragraphs 726-729, pp. 106-107 -- and so are indeed mandated internationally.   See also the relevant webpage at the IAEA, and member state compliance responses (to the entire manual)  -- Jheald (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAEA transport standards 

message: The flasks used internally for nuclear waste trains in the UK are usually of a square design, rather than the cylindrical Excellox flasks.  They are usually referred to as "Magnox flasks" or "AGR flasks", for spent fuel from each of these types of reactors respectively.  Externally almost identical, a Magnox flask weighs 47 tonnes and can hold 2.5 tonnes of fuel (submerged in water); an AGR flask weighs 53 tonnes and holds 7 tonnes of fuel ( page 8, citing ; see also  page 10 et seq.). 
The one tested in the train crash was a Magnox flask.  -- Jheald (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK flasks 

message: Today on westbound route 80 in eastern Pennsylvania I noticed a truck (#2916, "Hittman Transport Services") carrying what looked like a mini-"Mobile Chernobyl", a thick cask with wide end caps bearing radioactive placards standing on end, shorter than the average trailer roof.  Are these used for the same purpose, or something else?  (According to their web site this company offers "cask transport that supports all aspects of the fuel cycle", among other things).  This little version wouldn't carry enough for Yucca Mountain shipments, would it? Wnt (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the cask was square-ish, it was probably new fuel, which is 100% benign.  Yucca Mountain would transport using the largest of the transportable casks because that fuel has had the longest to cool off and radiative concerns are less.  They also propose dual-purpose overpacks meaning that the thing on the truck can go straight into the tunnel without any more work.  But that's not what you saw. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller casks? 

message: The link is dead.. or at least has been replaced by no content and just ads. I can't find any other reference to that story. Cs302b (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, it was a big story in the UK, into which there was a Office of Civil Nuclear Security probe. Still in google cache if you search, and the follow on Mirror story is still online. I don't think we need to change to another ref, non-onlife refs are fine. Rwendland (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: NB In times past, pre 9/11, UK SNF trains would sometimes halt within passanger stations. Quite by chance one did that when I was in Bristol TM station, not at a platform but a midway between platform track 3 metres from the platform edge where I was standing. From the direction it was travelling I suspect it was carrying spent fuel - I backed away! Staff got off the engine and carried out some wheel checks, before leaving the station. Unfortunately I did not have a camera on me. Rwendland (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story about fake bomb link 

message: Some images are on the NRC website, all public domain (no courtesy images) per :commons:Template:PD-USGov. See http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/photo-gallery/index.cfm?text=cask&cat=. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "While a release is unlikely, the potential releases calculated for the TN-68 rail package and the NAC LWT truck package indicate that any release of CRUD from either package would be very small - less than an A2 quantity"
OK, 1. what is "CRUD", 2. what is an "A2 quantity"? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained jargon 

message: Hi, sorry to disrupt. Propose merge of the subject in a more hierarchical way. Propose to have this subject as Nuclear vessel (containing info on the general subject of [Spent nuclear vessel]); the differentiation between nuclear reactor and radioactive waste treatment/transport can then be done, grouped per country. There's interesting material on the same subject (containment/shipping of "active nuclear materials") - What do you think? Wakari07 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose merge