3 ms·

These 100k year plans are beyond absurd. It's based on the flawed hypothesis that the radiation has to be below detectable levels compared to background before

These 100k year plans are beyond absurd. It's based on the flawed hypothesis that the radiation has to be below detectable levels compared to background before it's considered "safe", where in reality "safe" is a statistical property that can be reached in under 1000 years and perhaps even 100 years.

throwaway76543 9y ago
These projects are best viewed as an anti-nuclear performance piece. It's political theatre.
- jpalomaki 9y ago
  The fact is that there nuclear reactors in Finland, they have limited life span and there is (and will be) hazardous waste that needs to be handled somehow. Just putting all that to some temporary storage and hoping future generations will figure out what to do with it is not a good plan. Storing the stuff permanently under ground may not be perfect solution, but to my knowledge it is the best one we have (not producing the waste is not an option, as it has been already done). The plans also take into account that the waste can be recovered from the storage if we later figure out a better way to handle it.
colejohnson66 9y ago
Case in point: Chernobyl. It's not safe enough to live in (I'd say), but people visit there quite a lot I've heard.
- dirktheman 9y ago
  I visited Chernobyl last September. We had dosimeters with us so I have a pretty good understanding of the radiation levels. In Chernobyl, of roughly 90% of the places the background radiation is 1,5 to 3 times that of in Kyiv. (In Kyiv I measured around .20 μSv/hr, around the same as most of the US). However, there are some hotspots which measure >600 microsievert/hour. Sometimes these hotspots are easily recognizable (patches of moss, a tractor trailer used in the cleanup), but most of the times these hotspots appear to be really random. People working on the sarcofagus actually live in Chernobyl town for two weeks on, two weeks off. That way your body can get rid of the built up radiation. The flora and fauna in the Exclusion Zone is thriving. Radiation levels have dropped significantly, and most animals don't live to the age that they might see consequences of the elevated background radiation.
  - effie 9y ago
    > patches of moss That's interesting, do you think the radioactive material helped moss to grow, or that the moss patches catch the radioactive material flying around?
    - dirktheman 9y ago
      Radioactive material in the soil and air accumulates in the moss. Apparently some plant species store the particles better than others.
shaqbert 9y ago
100k or even "permanent" storage is a flawed concept, because that timespan is just too long to account for all possibilities. Nuclear scientist have been advocating managed storage of 50 to 100 years instead for quite some time, because there is a chance that (a) we might figure out a better way to separate and then transmute the long lasting fission products to quicker decaying elements, (b) we might come up with better ways to safely store, or (c) we may want to mine the waste for reprocessing the useful uranium and plutonium.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  It's flawed until someone succeeds
fsloth 9y ago
Did you read the article? To quote: "We can't say we know everything, but the first 1,000 years are the most important, and we can be confident about what happens then.""
nl 9y ago
It's based on the flawed hypothesis that the radiation has to be below detectable levels compared to background before it's considered "safe", where in reality "safe" is a statistical property that can be reached in under 1000 years and perhaps even 100 years. What on earth are you talking about? The most common byproduct of most reactors in use today is Plutonium 239[1]. It has a half-life of 24,000 years. This means it generates extremely high levels of radiation for thousands of years. While it is true that low levels of radiation aren't very dangerous, high doses are. For example, page 15 of [2] discusses studies on workers exposed to high levels of radiation from Plutonium. There are two studies, which disagree about the dangers of low level (one shows a linear relation, the other doesn't show any at low levels). At high levels, both show much higher death rates than control groups. That's only Plutonium 239. There are other high level nuclear waste products which last much longer, but aren't produced in such high amounts. [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue... [2] https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf
- robin_reala 9y ago
  I’m not disagreeing because it’s been ages since I’ve done any physics, but surely if an isotope produces extremely high levels of radiation it’s decaying extremely quickly?
  - nl 9y ago
    Yes indeed, you are pretty much correct (although factors such as the type of radiation also matter). This 24,000 year half life of Plutonium 239 is much shorter than something like the 4.5 billion year half-life of Uranium 238. There are things with much shorter half-lives too, of course. The danger from radioactive substances comes from many things. In Plutonium 239's case the danger is if any gets within the body. The alpha rays it generates don't penetrate through a body, but on the other hand if plutonium particles are ingested or breathed they cause "somewhere between 10 and 1,000 times more chromosomal damage than beta or gamma rays"[1] This is one of the reasons why the OP is so completely, utterly wrong. Without proper - very long term - protected disposal of high level nuclear waste it kills very easily. [1] http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-uranium.html http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-ur...

throwaway76543 9y ago

These projects are best viewed as an anti-nuclear performance piece. It's political theatre.

jpalomaki 9y ago
The fact is that there nuclear reactors in Finland, they have limited life span and there is (and will be) hazardous waste that needs to be handled somehow. Just putting all that to some temporary storage and hoping future generations will figure out what to do with it is not a good plan. Storing the stuff permanently under ground may not be perfect solution, but to my knowledge it is the best one we have (not producing the waste is not an option, as it has been already done). The plans also take into account that the waste can be recovered from the storage if we later figure out a better way to handle it.

colejohnson66 9y ago

Case in point: Chernobyl. It's not safe enough to live in (I'd say), but people visit there quite a lot I've heard.

dirktheman 9y ago
I visited Chernobyl last September. We had dosimeters with us so I have a pretty good understanding of the radiation levels. In Chernobyl, of roughly 90% of the places the background radiation is 1,5 to 3 times that of in Kyiv. (In Kyiv I measured around .20 μSv/hr, around the same as most of the US). However, there are some hotspots which measure >600 microsievert/hour. Sometimes these hotspots are easily recognizable (patches of moss, a tractor trailer used in the cleanup), but most of the times these hotspots appear to be really random. People working on the sarcofagus actually live in Chernobyl town for two weeks on, two weeks off. That way your body can get rid of the built up radiation. The flora and fauna in the Exclusion Zone is thriving. Radiation levels have dropped significantly, and most animals don't live to the age that they might see consequences of the elevated background radiation.
- effie 9y ago
  > patches of moss That's interesting, do you think the radioactive material helped moss to grow, or that the moss patches catch the radioactive material flying around?
  - dirktheman 9y ago
    Radioactive material in the soil and air accumulates in the moss. Apparently some plant species store the particles better than others.

shaqbert 9y ago

100k or even "permanent" storage is a flawed concept, because that timespan is just too long to account for all possibilities. Nuclear scientist have been advocating managed storage of 50 to 100 years instead for quite some time, because there is a chance that (a) we might figure out a better way to separate and then transmute the long lasting fission products to quicker decaying elements, (b) we might come up with better ways to safely store, or (c) we may want to mine the waste for reprocessing the useful uranium and plutonium.

walterstucco 9y ago
It's flawed until someone succeeds

fsloth 9y ago

Did you read the article? To quote: "We can't say we know everything, but the first 1,000 years are the most important, and we can be confident about what happens then.""

nl 9y ago

It's based on the flawed hypothesis that the radiation has to be below detectable levels compared to background before it's considered "safe", where in reality "safe" is a statistical property that can be reached in under 1000 years and perhaps even 100 years. What on earth are you talking about? The most common byproduct of most reactors in use today is Plutonium 239[1]. It has a half-life of 24,000 years. This means it generates extremely high levels of radiation for thousands of years. While it is true that low levels of radiation aren't very dangerous, high doses are. For example, page 15 of [2] discusses studies on workers exposed to high levels of radiation from Plutonium. There are two studies, which disagree about the dangers of low level (one shows a linear relation, the other doesn't show any at low levels). At high levels, both show much higher death rates than control groups. That's only Plutonium 239. There are other high level nuclear waste products which last much longer, but aren't produced in such high amounts. [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue... [2] https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf

robin_reala 9y ago
I’m not disagreeing because it’s been ages since I’ve done any physics, but surely if an isotope produces extremely high levels of radiation it’s decaying extremely quickly?
- nl 9y ago
  Yes indeed, you are pretty much correct (although factors such as the type of radiation also matter). This 24,000 year half life of Plutonium 239 is much shorter than something like the 4.5 billion year half-life of Uranium 238. There are things with much shorter half-lives too, of course. The danger from radioactive substances comes from many things. In Plutonium 239's case the danger is if any gets within the body. The alpha rays it generates don't penetrate through a body, but on the other hand if plutonium particles are ingested or breathed they cause "somewhere between 10 and 1,000 times more chromosomal damage than beta or gamma rays"[1] This is one of the reasons why the OP is so completely, utterly wrong. Without proper - very long term - protected disposal of high level nuclear waste it kills very easily. [1] http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-uranium.html http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-ur...