4 ms·

The nightmare looks like this: https://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/wastes-gorleben-salt-mine.gif https://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/20

The nightmare looks like this: https://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/wastes-gorleben-salt-mine.gif https://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/wastes-g... "Just dump it in a salt mine" and leave it there for a million years doesn't work. It can't work, be realistic.

chris_va 10y ago
That's just stupid, no one is proposing criminal negligence.
- nisa 10y ago
  That's not criminal negligence - that was the german test field for storing nuclear waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome
Reason077 10y ago
Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue. But compared to burning fossil fuels for energy, it's by far the lesser of two evils. Most of the more dangerous fission products will have decayed sufficiently to be "safe" after hundreds, or thousands of years. Nowhere near a million! Anything that lasts longer than that emits so little radioactivity that it's pretty much background noise. There are plenty of naturally occurring sources of radiation that are strong enough to be dangerous - like Radon in Cornwall, UK. Even if a future civilisation accidentally digs up one of our waste sites in a few thousand years time, it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source.
- nisa 10y ago
  > it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source. Really? That would be mostly oxidized uranium - white not really harmless it's something different than highly toxic plutonium - besides that you have extremly toxic decay products that e.g. pose a problem for the chernobyl area. Besides that there are more than enough isotopes used in nuclear energy that have a half-life of millions of years. If you look at the history of Europe in the past 2000 years it's not exactly been peaceful - also something to consider - especially as we have the knowledge to use nuclear reactors to weaponize this waste.
  - Reason077 10y ago
    Nuclear waste shouldn't contain plutonium. That stuff is expensive, so there's an economic incentive, as well as environmental, to reprocess waste and recover any remaining fuel. Chernobyl (and Fukushima) are entirely different (and much worse) because you do have the nuclear fuel itself being exposed to the environment. But waste fission products in a modern reactor are far less dangerous compared to the fuel that goes in, especially once they have been properly reprocessed and then stored for while. Isotopes with half lives in the millions of years, as opposed to years or decades, really aren't all that dangerous in terms of radioactivity. Longer half life generally means less radiation.
tremon 10y ago
The realistic option is to pursue the development of fast breeder reactors, which can use that "waste" as their fuel and solve 99% of the problem.

chris_va 10y ago

That's just stupid, no one is proposing criminal negligence.

nisa 10y ago
That's not criminal negligence - that was the german test field for storing nuclear waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome

Reason077 10y ago

Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue. But compared to burning fossil fuels for energy, it's by far the lesser of two evils. Most of the more dangerous fission products will have decayed sufficiently to be "safe" after hundreds, or thousands of years. Nowhere near a million! Anything that lasts longer than that emits so little radioactivity that it's pretty much background noise. There are plenty of naturally occurring sources of radiation that are strong enough to be dangerous - like Radon in Cornwall, UK. Even if a future civilisation accidentally digs up one of our waste sites in a few thousand years time, it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source.

nisa 10y ago
> it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source. Really? That would be mostly oxidized uranium - white not really harmless it's something different than highly toxic plutonium - besides that you have extremly toxic decay products that e.g. pose a problem for the chernobyl area. Besides that there are more than enough isotopes used in nuclear energy that have a half-life of millions of years. If you look at the history of Europe in the past 2000 years it's not exactly been peaceful - also something to consider - especially as we have the knowledge to use nuclear reactors to weaponize this waste.
- Reason077 10y ago
  Nuclear waste shouldn't contain plutonium. That stuff is expensive, so there's an economic incentive, as well as environmental, to reprocess waste and recover any remaining fuel. Chernobyl (and Fukushima) are entirely different (and much worse) because you do have the nuclear fuel itself being exposed to the environment. But waste fission products in a modern reactor are far less dangerous compared to the fuel that goes in, especially once they have been properly reprocessed and then stored for while. Isotopes with half lives in the millions of years, as opposed to years or decades, really aren't all that dangerous in terms of radioactivity. Longer half life generally means less radiation.

tremon 10y ago

The realistic option is to pursue the development of fast breeder reactors, which can use that "waste" as their fuel and solve 99% of the problem.