3 ms·
No, it's actually quite simple. Encase the waste in concrete, and ship it in a shipping container [1]. The concrete caskets have enough radiation shielding that
by manfredo 7y ago
No, it's actually quite simple. Encase the waste in concrete, and ship it in a shipping container [1]. The concrete caskets have enough radiation shielding that it is not dangerous to stand near them. Burying the waste is really just a safeguard against potential long-term leakage.
1. These concrete caskets look like this: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images/f1big.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images...
- yencabulator 7y agoMeanwhile, > An average of 1,390 containers have been lost at sea each year over the past three years, [...]
- manfredo 7y agoTo be more explicit, that is 1,390 containers per year out of all shipping containers shipped in a given year. That's a fairly low failure rate. And most waste doesn't need to be shipped overseas, just within continents. And besides, losing one (or even dozens) of these caskets at sea will not result in any noticeable increase in radiation. Multiple nuclear powered summaries have sunk with fuel still in their reactors. The point remains: nuclear waste is a non-issue, and it is extremely difficult to use it as an objection to nuclear energy in an intellectually honest manner.