Feature story - 2 November, 2004
At the sites of some information agencies there was information that Kirghizia refused to import radioactive waste for reprocessing, namely uraniferous graphite supplied by "British Nuclear Fuels" Company (BNF). Unlike Kirghizia, Russia keeps on importing uranium.
Villages near Techa River (zone contaminated by Mayak)
At present Western countries tend to send so called depleted
uranium - "terraces", "reject materials" etc., produced during the
uranium enrichment - to the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Among them are Russia and Kirghizia.
Kirghizia has just refused to import radioactive waste, as such
a business caused a scandal and the government had to officially
reject any bargains. But Russia, unlike Kirghizia, is ready to
import uranium.
What's the background of these questionable projects?
-
- First, what is that Western countries are willing to get rid
of? It is uranium hecsfluoride. It is toxic gaseous matter that
needs careful storage and considerable expenses. If containers with
uranium hecsofluoride become depressurized, large areas will be
polluted.
-
- Second, from exporters' point of view (for example, BNF), the
business with uranium hecsofluoride is quite profitable. But if
it's so profitable, why does not Britain make business on uranium
enrichment, but prefer using outside facilities?
-
- Third, why most of exported uranium finally remains in
importing countries: Kirghizia, Russia (90% of this uranium is not
used after the enrichment)?
-
Answers are evident for experts in double standards: "profitable
business" enables Western countries to take back 10% of reprocessed
uranium (it'll be reused), and, to make it fair, to leave 90% of
the "reject material" in Kirghizia and Russia.